Ringer v. Schweiker (1982)
green
· 47 citation events
across 13 courts.
Showing the 14 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198220042026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Heckler v. Ringer (1984)
It concluded that the thrust of respondents’ claim is that “the Secretary’s presumptive rule that the BCBR operation is not reasonable and necessary was an unlawful administrative mechanism for determining awards of benefits.” 697 F. 2d, at 1294.
Plaintiffs also contend that section 1361 jurisdiction exists because they are making a constitutional challenge to the procedures used by the Secretary rather than seeking the payment of benefits, citing Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d at 1294, 1296 .
green
Kuehner v. Schweiker (1983)
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reached a similar conclusion, holding that "language prohibiting reliance on the federal question or mandamus provisions for any action 'to recover on a claim arising under' the [Social Security] Act only applie[s] to actual claims for benefits." Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir.1982) (quoting section 405(h)), cert. granted Heckler v. Ringer, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 3535 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1386 (1983); accord Ryan v.…
green
Dockstader v. Miller (1983)
We noted that "when suit is brought simply to vindicate an interest in procedural regularity, there is no statutory bar." 9 Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291, 1293-94 (9th Cir.1982) (quoting Daniel H.
green
Kuehner v. Schweiker (1983)
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reached a similar conclusion, holding that “language prohibiting reliance on the federal question or mandamus provisions for any action ‘to recover on a claim arising under’ the [Social Security] Act only applie[s] to actual claims for benefits.” Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir.1982) (quoting section 405(h)), cert. granted Heckler v. Ringer, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 3535 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1386 (1983); accord Ryan v. Shea…
green
Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Commission Of The Supreme Court Of Illinois v. Richard S. Schweiker (1983)
Cases allowing suits to be brought under section 1331 challenging the procedures used by the Social Security Administration--such as Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291, 1293-94 (9th Cir.1982), and the cases cited in Pushkin v. Califano, 600 F.2d 486 , 490-91 n. 9 (5th Cir.1979), including Schwartzberg v. Califano, 453 F.Supp. 1042, 1045 (S.D.N.Y.1978)--are thus distinguishable, as well as contrary to this circuit's decision in Trinity Memorial Hospital of Cudahy, Inc. v. Ass…
Cases allowing suits to be brought under section 1331 challenging the procedures used by the Social Security Administration — such as Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291, 1293-94 (9th Cir. 1982), and the cases cited in Pushkin v. Califano, 600 F.2d 486 , 490-91 n. 9 (5th Cir.1979), including Schwartzberg v. Califano, 453 F.Supp. 1042, 1045 (S.D.N.Y.1978)— are thus distinguishable, as well as contrary to this circuit’s decision in Trinity Memorial Hospital of Cudahy, Inc. v. A…
green
Lopez v. Heckler (1983)
Ringer et al. v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291, 1295 (9th Cir. 1982).
See Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F. 2d 1291 (CA9 1982), cert. granted, ante, p. 1206.
green
4 soc.sec.rep.ser. 80, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15,133 Mario Lopez v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and… (1984)
See Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir.1982), cert. granted sub nom.
green
Rodney BURNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis BOWEN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defen… (1987)
See Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir.1982), cert. granted sub nom.
green
Mental Health Ass'n of Minnesota v. Heckler (1983)
See also Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir.1982), cert. granted sub nom.
green
Mental Health Association of Minnesota v. Heckler (1983)
See also Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir.1982), cert. granted sub nom.
green
Breault v. Heckler (1984)
See also, Ringer v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 1291, 1293-94 (9th Cir.1982) (“ ‘when suit is brought simply to vindicate an interest in procedural regularity, there is no statutory bar’ ” (citation omitted)), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.