Walker v. City of Chi.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the presentment requirement where none of them “had challenged the new reimbursement regulation in the context of a specific administrative claim for payment”
• holding that failure to meet presentment requirement could not be cured during the pendency of the appeal because the attempts “come too late to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in the district court”
• noting that the “presentment” and “exhaustion” requirements are separate and that the latter is waivable
• stating manufacturers “would have to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of HHS to provide price reductions (whether through a discount, rebate, or other mechanism) to these ‘covered entities’ on covered outpatient drugs”
• “[F]ederal-question jurisdiction remains available where necessary to preserve an opportunity for judicial review.”
• “[F]ederal-question jurisdiction remains available where necessary to preserve an opportunity for judicial review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).