Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 FSUPP2D 499 - Chisholm v. Hood

Chisholm v. Hood’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396D (§ 1905 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Christensen v. Harris County · Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn. · O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center · Cedar Rapids Community School District, v. Garret F., a Minor by His Mother and Next Friend, Charlene F.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[r]estricting Medicaid recipients to schools and EICs for therapy services that are traditionally included in their educational or family service plans violates their statutory right to obtain these services from other qualified providers.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Exactly how and in what fashion the state provides [EPSDT] services is left up to the state, as long as the state's plan to provide EPSDT services `complies satisfactorily' with the requirements of federal law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “make available a variety of individual and group providers qualified and willing to provide EPSDT services.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.