Russell-Murray Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the cap reimbursement regulation is invalid
• noting that the question of the regulation’s invalidity was “well-trod ground”
• “[T]he fact that the challenged regulation was directly applied to the plaintiff strongly supports the conclusion that it has standing to challenge that regulation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).