Legal Opinion
Haro v. Sebelius
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 4, 2013No. 11-16606PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge CHRISTEN.
ORDER
The opinion filed on September 4, 2013, and appearing at 729 F.3d 993, is amended as follows:
On page 5 of the slip opinion, replace the third sentence of the first paragraph with the following language:
But we conclude that the beneficiaries failed to satisfy the channeling requirement at the administrative level and therefore the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
On page 5 of the slip opinion, in the fifth sentence of the first paragraph, replace the word “beneficiaries’ ” with the word “appellees.’ ”
On page 10 of…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- B.K. v. Thomas BetlachCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Florida, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019
- Netro v. Greater Balt. Med. Ctr., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2018
- Sensory Neurostimulation, Inc. v. Alex Azar, IICourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- AL Otro Lado, Inc. v. NielsenDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2018
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.