Ninth Circuit· 7/13/1994

Beno v. Shalala

Citations

30 F.3d 1057
1994 WL 330364

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that a HHS decision was reviewable even though the statute permitted the Secretary to authorize waivers only “to the extent and for the period the Secretary finds necessary” and according to the Secretary’s “judgment” (alteration and emphasis omitted)
noting that “the record contains a rather stunning lack of evidence” and finding that the administrative record was inadequate to support the agency’s decision
noting that “[a] simple benefits cut, which might save money, ... would not satisfy this requirement”
finding that “a simple benefits cut, which might save money, but has no research or experimental goal, would not satisfy this requirement [that the project has a research or demonstration value.]”
\Stating that a factor was considered is not a substitute for considering it.\
\Stating that a factor was considered is not a substitute for considering it.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Goodwin, Norris, Scannlain

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

111 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

72 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Beno v. Shalala

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.