In Re Matey’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396K (§ 1912 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396P (§ 1917 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v Ahlborn · Losser v. Bradstreet · Canal/Norcrest/Columbus Action Committee v. City of Boise · State Department of Health & Welfare v. Hudelson
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall have priority to any amount received from a third party or entity which can reasonably be construed to compensate the recipient for the occurrence giving rise to the need for medical assistance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the Supreme Court specifically stated that damages received for medical care did not constitute property subject to the anti-lien provisions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.