Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 279 FRD 347 - Pashby v. Cansler

Pashby v. Cansler’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
March 2014
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 4 district ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (§ 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12312 · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 13961 (§ 40291 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Goldberg v. Kelly · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Defendant’s notice to all Plaintiffs contained verbatim language that failed to provide detailed reasons for the proposed termination. As the termination of in-home PCS could be quantified as a “brutal need,’’ Defendant is likely required to go to greater lengths to provide more detailed notice regarding the reasons for the termination of an individual’s benefits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]ll current or future North Carolina Medicaid recipients age 21 or older who have, or will have, coverage of PCS denied, delayed, interrupted, terminated, or reduced by Defendant directly or through his agents or assigns as a result of the new eligibility requirements for in-home PCS and unlawful policies contained in IHCA Policy 3E.”
    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.