6 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1981–1993 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Merrill v. Merrillgreen2 sentences1986Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962). 1986Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962). | 3 | 3 |
Temple University v. Whitegreen2 sentences1993For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently found that the findings requirement was not satisfied where the state had made no findings based on empirical studies “on such matters, for example, as the characteristics of an efficient and economical hospital operation, the impact of the proposed reimbursement rates upon hospitals’ ability to survive, etc...." Temple University v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 210 (3d Cir.1991) (quoting Temple University v. White, 729 F.Supp. 1093, 1100 (E.D.Pa.1990)), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 873 , 116 L.Ed.2d 778 (1992). . 1993Lett v. Magnant, 965 F.2d 251, 256 (7th Cir.1992); see also Mary Washington Hosp., Inc. v. Fisher, 635 F. Supp. 891, 899 (E.D.Va. 1985) ("the premise that a hospital is entitled under the new law to be recompensed its reasonable costs unless it is inefficient or uneconomical ... reflects a misunderstanding of [the Boren Amendment]"). [11] For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently found that the findings requirement was not satisfied where the state had made no findings based on empirical studies "on such matters, for example, as the characteristics of an ef | 2 | 2 |
Pinnacle Nursing Home v. David Axelrodgreen2 sentences1993At the very least, these factors require states to inquire into the actual operation of existing facilities before establishing an objective benchmark. 11 The Second Circuit has held that “the state must make findings which establish a nexus between the costs of operating efficient and economic nursing facilities and the proposed reimbursement rates under the state plan.” Pinnacle Nursing Home v. Axelrod, 928 F.2d 1306, 1314 (2d Cir.1991). 12 In our view, the findings requirement of Boren is designed to ensure that rates are not set arbitrarily, i.e., without proper consideration of the costs 1993At the very least, these factors require states to inquire into the actual operation of existing facilities before establishing an objective benchmark. [11] The Second Circuit has held that "the state must make findings which establish a nexus between the costs of operating efficient and economic nursing facilities and the proposed reimbursement rates under the state plan." Pinnacle Nursing Home v. Axelrod, 928 F.2d 1306, 1314 (2d Cir.1991). [12] In our view, the findings requirement of Boren is designed to ensure that rates are not set arbitrarily, i.e., without proper consideration of the co | 2 | 2 |
cluster 566324green2 sentences1993For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently found that the findings requirement was not satisfied where the state had made no findings based on empirical studies “on such matters, for example, as the characteristics of an efficient and economical hospital operation, the impact of the proposed reimbursement rates upon hospitals’ ability to survive, etc...." Temple University v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 210 (3d Cir.1991) (quoting Temple University v. White, 729 F.Supp. 1093, 1100 (E.D.Pa.1990)), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 873 , 116 L.Ed.2d 778 (1992). . 1993Lett v. Magnant, 965 F.2d 251, 256 (7th Cir.1992); see also Mary Washington Hosp., Inc. v. Fisher, 635 F. Supp. 891, 899 (E.D.Va. 1985) ("the premise that a hospital is entitled under the new law to be recompensed its reasonable costs unless it is inefficient or uneconomical ... reflects a misunderstanding of [the Boren Amendment]"). [11] For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently found that the findings requirement was not satisfied where the state had made no findings based on empirical studies "on such matters, for example, as the characteristics of an ef | 2 | 2 |
NL Industries, Inc. v. GHR Energy Corp.green2 sentences1993Lett v. Magnant, 965 F.2d 251, 256 (7th Cir.1992); see also Mary Washington Hosp., Inc. v. Fisher, 635 F. Supp. 891, 899 (E.D.Va. 1985) ("the premise that a hospital is entitled under the new law to be recompensed its reasonable costs unless it is inefficient or uneconomical ... reflects a misunderstanding of [the Boren Amendment]"). [11] For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently found that the findings requirement was not satisfied where the state had made no findings based on empirical studies "on such matters, for example, as the characteristics of an ef 1993Lett v. Magnant, 965 F.2d 251, 256 (7th Cir.1992); see also Mary Washington Hosp., Inc. v. Fisher, 635 F. Supp. 891, 899 (E.D.Va. 1985) ("the premise that a hospital is entitled under the new law to be recompensed its reasonable costs unless it is inefficient or uneconomical ... reflects a misunderstanding of [the Boren Amendment]"). [11] For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently found that the findings requirement was not satisfied where the state had made no findings based on empirical studies "on such matters, for example, as the characteristics of an ef | 1 | 2 |
37 soc.sec.rep.ser. 362, Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 40,322 Eric Lett v. Suzanne Magnantgreen1 sentence1993Lett v. Magnant, 965 F.2d 251, 256 (7th Cir.1992); see also Mary Washington Hosp., Inc. v. Fisher, 635 F. Supp. 891, 899 (E.D.Va. 1985) ("the premise that a hospital is entitled under the new law to be recompensed its reasonable costs unless it is inefficient or uneconomical ... reflects a misunderstanding of [the Boren Amendment]"). [11] For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently found that the findings requirement was not satisfied where the state had made no findings based on empirical studies "on such matters, for example, as the characteristics of an ef | 1 | 1 |
Mary Washington Hospital, Inc. v. Fishergreen1 sentence1993Lett v. Magnant, 965 F.2d 251, 256 (7th Cir.1992); see also Mary Washington Hosp., Inc. v. Fisher, 635 F. Supp. 891, 899 (E.D.Va. 1985) ("the premise that a hospital is entitled under the new law to be recompensed its reasonable costs unless it is inefficient or uneconomical ... reflects a misunderstanding of [the Boren Amendment]"). [11] For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently found that the findings requirement was not satisfied where the state had made no findings based on empirical studies "on such matters, for example, as the characteristics of an ef | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn.
green
2 sentences1993Therefore, we conclude that states must make concrete findings, based on studies of existing facilities, and use these studies to establish, with reference to either existing or hypothetical facilities, an "objective benchmark of an `efficiently and economically operated facility.'" Wilder, 496 U.S. at 519 , 110 S.Ct. at 2522 . 1993Therefore, we conclude that states must make concrete findings, based on studies of existing facilities, and use these studies to establish, with reference to either existing or hypothetical facilities, an "objective benchmark of an `efficiently and economically operated facility.'" Wilder, 496 U.S. at 519 , 110 S.Ct. at 2522 . | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Multicare Medical Center v. State of Wash.
green
2 sentences1993See, e.g., Pinnacle Nursing Home v. Axelrod, 928 F.2d 1306, 1314 (2d Cir.1991); Multicare Medical Ctr. v. Washington, 768 F.Supp. 1349 (W.D.Wash.1991); Folden v. Washington State Dep’t of Social and Health Servs., 744 F.Supp. 1507 (W.D.Wash.1990). 1993See, e.g., Pinnacle Nursing Home v. Axelrod, 928 F.2d 1306, 1314 (2d Cir.1991); Multicare Medical Ctr. v. Washington, 768 F. Supp. 1349 (W.D.Wash. 1991); Folden v. Washington State Dep't of Social and Health Servs., 744 F. Supp. 1507 (W.D.Wash. 1990). | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Folden v. Washington State Department of Social & Health Services
green
2 sentences1993See, e.g., Pinnacle Nursing Home v. Axelrod, 928 F.2d 1306, 1314 (2d Cir.1991); Multicare Medical Ctr. v. Washington, 768 F.Supp. 1349 (W.D.Wash.1991); Folden v. Washington State Dep’t of Social and Health Servs., 744 F.Supp. 1507 (W.D.Wash.1990). 1993See, e.g., Pinnacle Nursing Home v. Axelrod, 928 F.2d 1306, 1314 (2d Cir.1991); Multicare Medical Ctr. v. Washington, 768 F. Supp. 1349 (W.D.Wash. 1991); Folden v. Washington State Dep't of Social and Health Servs., 744 F. Supp. 1507 (W.D.Wash. 1990). | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELES
green
2 sentences1981Topanga Association, 113 Cal.Rptr. at 842 , 522 P.2d at 18 . 1981Topanga Association, 113 Cal.Rptr. at 842 , 522 P.2d at 18 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.