Ahern v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Skindzier v. Commissioner of Social Services (2001), State v. Peters (2008)
1 district · 41 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 2001 (Excise, Estate, and Gift Tax Adjustment Act of 1970) · 26 U.S.C. § 2010 · 26 U.S.C. § 2036 · 26 U.S.C. § 2041 · 26 U.S.C. § 2501 · 26 U.S.C. § 2514 · 26 U.S.C. § 671 · 26 U.S.C. § 674
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Auer v. Robbins · Harris v. McRae · Schweiker v. Gray Panthers · Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he State plan must provide that if an institutionalized individual or the spouse of such an individual . . . disposes of assets for less than fair market value on or after the look-back date specified in subparagraph (B)(i), the individual is ineligible for medical assistance for [nursing facility] services . . . The look-back date specified in this subparagraph is a date that is 36 months (or in the case of payments from a trust or portions of a trust that are treated as assets disposed of by the individual pursuant to paragraph (3)(A)(iii) or 3 (B)(ii) of subsection (d) of this section, 60 months) before the date specified in clause (ii). [The date specified in clause (ii) is the date the individual is both institutionalized and has applied for medical assistance.] 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396p (c)(1).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The federal government shares the costs of medicaid with those states that elect to participate in the program, and, in return, the states are required to comply with requirements imposed by the medicaid act and by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““(b) Upon the application of the Department of Social Services, the Superior Court shall terminate an inter vivos trust established by a person or the person’s spouse when the person or the person’s spouse becomes an applicant for or recipient of public assistance or Medicaid. The Superior Court shall order that the principal and any undistributed income shall be distributed to the settlor of the trust. This section shall not apply if the settlor, the settlor’s spouse, a conservator or other legal representative of the settlor or the settlor’s spouse, or any other person having a beneficial interest in the trust, establishes by clear and convincing evidence that not one of the principal purposes of the trust was the current or future qualification of the settlor or the settlor’s spouse for benefits under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1396 et seq.). . . .””
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.