Smith v. Concannon’s Empirical Analysis
951 F.2d 178 · 1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Batterton v. Francis · Schweiker v. Gray Panthers · Gardebring v. Jenkins · Herweg v. Ray
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to Peura for purposes of contributing to his health care. Peura contends that neither amount is available; the state and federal defendants argue that the Secretary could properly rule that both are available. Our review of the Secretary's definition of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“limited to ensuring that he did not exceed his statutory authority and that his regulation is not arbitrary or capricious.”
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.