Case Citator › Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
863 F.2d 633
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
56 of 56
Citing cases (total)
56
Treatment dates
1992–2006
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Services was overruled in part, and both confirmed treatments are listed below. All 56 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Ninth Circuit sitting en banc rejected its permission for a panel to choose between conflicting circuit rulings without seeking en banc review. The Eleventh Circuit rejected its rule against considering a new argument first raised in objections to a magistrate judge's report. Its separate holding about appealing legal conclusions already presented to the magistrate was not overruled in these opinions.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

56 later cases cite Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Services; 56 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Services?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The Ninth Circuit sitting en banc overruled Greenhow's rule allowing a panel to choose between conflicting circuit decisions without calling for en banc review.

    United States v. Hardesty · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    In Greenhow, a three-judge panel of this court held that where there are two opposing lines of authority, a panel may, without calling for en banc review, follow the rule which has “successfully posed as the law of the circuit for long enough to be relied upon.” 863 F.2d at 636. Greenhow did not cite our Atonio en banc decision. We therefore overrule Greenhow to the extent that it conflicts with Atonio.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to Follow

  • The Eleventh Circuit rejected Greenhow's bar on considering an argument first raised in objections to a magistrate judge's report.

    Stephens v. Tolbert · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    We reject the notion that, in its review of the report and recommendation, the district court performed an appellate function and was barred, outside of exceptional circumstances, from considering an argument not raised before the magistrate judge. See Greenhow, 863 F.2d at 638-39; Borden v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987). The relationship between district courts and magistrate judges differs significantly from the relationship between appellate courts and district courts.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Services and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace