Walsh v. McGee’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1362 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2202 · 41 U.S.C. § 405 · 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 13951 (§ 40281 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on Bell v. Hood · Powell v. McCormack · William Marbury v. James Madison · Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Heckler v. Ringer
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The result in this case should come as no surprise to plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel previously served as counsel in a very similar Medicare Part B challenge that the Second Circuit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the same grounds as those controlling in this case. Anderson v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 1 (2d Cir.1989), aff 'g, No. 87-4048, slip. op. (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 1988). Remarkably, counsel neglected to cite Anderson or any of the other relevant case law previously mentioned. Counsel further failed to respond to defendant’s reliance on these cases in support of defendants’ 12(b)(1) motion. In light of counsel’s familiarity with this area of Medicare law, and his personal knowledge of Anderson, this Court is puzzled by counsel’s failure to cite these cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Careful review of plaintiffs’ papers reveals that plaintiffs failed to cite any relevant Medicare case law in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Similarly, plaintiffs cited no authority that contradicts or limits Kuritzky’s rule that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to the application or interpretation of Part B regulations. Remarkably, plaintiffs made no attempt to distinguish Kuritzky and the other relevant Second Circuit case law in their Reply memo, despite defendants’ reliance on this case to support defendants’ jurisdictional argument.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.