Adirondack Medical Center v. Kathleen Sebelius (2014)
green
· 123 citation events
across 11 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201420202026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Hays Medical Center v. Azar (2020)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.
green
Texas Association of Business v. FCC (2025)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 699 (D.C.
suggesting that RadLAX’s application of the canon “is better characterized as one concerning superfluity”
green
Bridgeport Hospital v. Xavier Becerra (2024)
It allows HHS to “fill[ ] ” the “space that the specific provisions do not occupy.” Adirondack Medical Center v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 699 (D.C.
interpreting “adjustment” in § 1395ww(d)(5)(I)(i)
green
Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc v. Gina Raimondo (2022)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
green
Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd. v. Gina Raimondo (2022)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
cleaned up
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 698 (D.C.
green
Adirondack Medical Center v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell (2015)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.Cir.2014).
green
Ivy Sports Medicine, LLC v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell (2014)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
emphasizing that “the canon’s relevance and applicability must be assessed within the context of the entire statutory framework”
green
Jacqueline Halbig v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell (2014)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 699-700 (D.C.Cir.2014); see Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 538 , 124 S.Ct. 1023 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004) (rejecting an interpretation that “would have [the Court] read an absent word into the statute” because such an interpretation “would result ‘not [in] a construction of [the] statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court’ ” (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245, 251 , 46 S.…
green
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. v. SEC (2025)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
quoting Cheney R.R. Co. v. ICC, 902 F.2d 66 , 68–69 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
green
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC v. SEC (2022)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
quoting Cheney R.R. Co. v. I.C.C., 902 F.2d 66 , 68–69 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
green
Jane Doe v. SEC (2022)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
quoting Cheney R.R. Co. v. ICC, 902 F.2d 66, 69 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
green
Sierra Club v. EPA (2021)
In addition to ignoring the word “such,” EPA’s argument runs afoul of the “‘basic principle of statutory construction that a specific statute . . . controls over a general provision . . . particularly when the two are interrelated and closely positioned.’” Adirondack Medical Center v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 698 (D.C.
alterations in original
green
National Lifeline Association v. FCC (2020)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 698 (D.C.
green
Mercy Hospital, Inc. v. Alex M. Azar II (2018)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 699 (D.C.
green
District Hospital Partners v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell (2015)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.Cir.2014).
green
Janet Howard v. Penny Pritzker (2015)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 698 (D.C.Cir.2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also RadLAX Gate *433 way Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2065, 2071 , 182 L.Ed.2d 967 (2012).
green
Jacqueline Halbig v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell (2014)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 699-700 (D.C.
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694-95 (D.C.Cir. 2014). 2 .
green
Farrell v. Tillerson (2019)
Ctr., 740 F.3d at 698 (“[W]hen countervailed by a broad grant of authority contained within the same statutory scheme, the canon is a poor indicator of Congress’s intent.”).
“[W]hen countervailed by a broad grant of authority contained within the same statutory scheme, the canon is a poor indicator of Congress’s intent.”
green
Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc. v. Sebelius (2015)
Ctr. v. Sebelius (“Adirondack”), 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.Cir.2014); see also Methodist Hosp., 38 F.3d at 1227 , 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(3)(D).
green
['ADIRONDACK MEDICAL CENTER v. SEBELIUS'] (2014)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.Cir.2014). 3 A. Basics of Medicare Reimbursements The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division of HHS, administers Medicare under the executive management of the Secretary, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395 et seq.
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692 , 698–99 (D.C.
“[I]t is our duty to harmonize the provisions and render each effective.”
green
Hmh Hospitals Corporation v. Becerra (2025)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.
green
Spring v. Davidson (2025)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 698 (D.C.
“Absent congressional intent to the contrary, it is the court’s duty to harmonize statutory provisions to render each effective.”
green
St. Marys Regional Medical Center v. Xavier Becerra (2024)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.
green
Ardelyx, Inc. v. Becerra (2024)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 698 (D.C.
describing “the basic principle of statutory construction that a specific statute controls over a general provision particularly when the two are interrelated and closely positioned” (cleaned up)
green
In re: Off-Spec Solutions, LLC (2023)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 698 (D.C.
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 696 (D.C.
green
Bridgeport Hospital v. Azar (2022)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 696 (D.C.
green
Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd. v. Raimondo (2021)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
internal citations and quotation marks omitted
green
Firsthealth Moore Regional Hospital v. Azar (2021)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.
green
Ascension Borgess Hospital v. Azar (2021)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.
green
McAfee v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2021)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 698 (D.C.
quoting Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 596 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
green
Authority of the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery to Oversee Programs Established Under the CA… (2021)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 699 (D.C.
“The canon is particularly unhelpful when both interpretive outcomes lead to some sort of surplusage.”
green
NeTtel Corporation (2020)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
green
Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc. v. Sebelius (2018)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 695 (D.C.
green
American Hospital Association (2018)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 700 (D.C.
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
quoting Cheney R.R. Co. v. I.C.C., 902 F.2d 66 , 68–69 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
green
Charleston Area Medical Center v. Burwell (2016)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 694 (D.C.
green
St. Vincent's Medical Center v. Burwell (2016)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 696 (D.C.
discussing "the canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one is the exclusion of others)”
green
Clarian Health West, LLC v. Burwell (2016)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 696 (D.C.
green
Soto v. United States Department of State (2016)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 696 (D.C.
applying this canon
green
Rubbermaid Commercial Prods. LLC v. United States (2015)
Indeed, the expressio unius canon has been described as a “feeble helper in an administrative setting.” Id., 39 CIT at ____ n.19, 2015 WL 3853684 * 6 n.19 (quoting Adirondack Medical Center v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
green
Meridian Products, LLC v. United States (2015)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.Cir.2014) (finding the canon a "feeble helper in an administrative setting”). 20 .In the Geodesic Domes Scope Ruling, Commerce found that while a kit containing unas-sembled parts in the form of aluminum extrusions, screws and assembly instructions "met the initial requirements for inclusion into the "finished goods kit” exclusion” because it contained all of the parts required to fully assemble a final finished good, an "exception to…
green
United States v. Banks (2014)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 698 (D.C.Cir.2014) (noting “ ‘basic principle of statutory construction that a specific statute ... controls over a general provision ... particularly when the two are interrelated and closely positioned’” (quoting HCSC-Laundry v. United States, 450 U.S. 1, 6 , 101 S.Ct. 836 , 67 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981))); Wyss, 744 F.3d at 1219 (“ ‘specific statutory provisions prevail over more general provisions’ absent clear congressional intent to the contrary” …
green
Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 700 (D.C.Cir.2014). 18 C.
green
['DEVLIN v. BERRY'] (2014)
Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 696 (D.C.Cir.2014) (quoting Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 706 F.3d 499, 503 (D.C.Cir.2013).
See, e.g., Adirondack Medical Center v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 699-700 (D.C.