Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 F.3d 1351 - Painter v. Shalala

Painter v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis

97 F.3d 1351 · 1996

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
4
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Wyoming v. United States (2002), Marcus v. Kansas, Department of Revenue (1999)

24 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions

210199620002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Morrissey v. Brewer · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · William Marbury v. James Madison · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp.

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1395ff of this title, 1395oo, of this title, or otherwise of — (A) the development of the classification system under [section 1395i(t)(2) ], including the establishment of groups and relative payment weights for covered [outpatient department] services, of wage adjustment factors, other adjustments, and methods described in [section 1395i(t)(2)(F) ]; ... [and] (C) periodic adjustments made under [section 1395Z(t)(9) ].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although [a physician] may have a recognizable property interest in receiving payment in accordance with the fee schedule . . . there is nothing in the Medicare Act which would have led a reasonable physician to believe that he might be entitled to a greater payment than was outlined in the Secretary's fee schedule.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the `no review' provision clearly indicates Congress' intent to preclude administrative and judicial review of the manner in which the conversion factor is calculated by the Secretary”
    2 later decisions 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.