Kai v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
336 F.3d 650 · 2003
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396R (§ 1925 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396U (§ 1930 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396U (§ 1931 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he effect of the provision is clearly to make eligible for medical assistance not only persons who were receiving AFDC on July 16, 1996, but also certain other persons. Section 1396u-l(b)(l) makes persons receiving AFDC eligible for medical assistance, but the provision is expressly made “subject to paragraphs (2) and (3).” The phrase “subject to” must mean that, in the event of any conflict between (2) or (3) and (1), the former two paragraphs will prevail, or, in the present context, that (2) and (3) add persons to the group that is already eligible under (1) by virtue of being AFDC recipients.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) References to subchapter IV-A are references to pre-welfare-reform provisions Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, with respect to a State any reference in this subchapter (or any other provision of law in relation to the operation of this subchapter) to a provision of part A of subchapter IV of this chapter, or a State plan under such part (or- a provision of such a plan), including income and resource standards and in- come and resource methodologies under such part or plan, shall be considered a reference to such a provision or plan as in effect as of July 16, 1996, with respect to the State. (b) Application of pre-welfare reform eligibility criteria (1) In general For purposes of this subchapter, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in determining eligibility for medical assistance - (A)an individual shall be treated as receiving aid or assistance under a State plan approved under part A of subchapter IV of this chapter only if the individual meets - (i) the income and resource standards for determining eligibility under such plan, ... as in effect as of July 16,1996 .... (2) State option For the purposes of applying this section, a State - (A) may lower its income standards applicable with respect to part A of subchapter IV of this chapter, but not below the income standards applicable under its State plan under such part on May 1,1988; (B) may increase income or resource standards under the State plan referred to in paragraph (1) over a period (beginn”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bowlin v. Montanez“Id. (emphasis added). Here, TWC's interpretation of the clear language of § 607 is impermissible. Thus, the doctrine of cooperative federalism is inapplicable. 50 Defendants proffer a letter from the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services to support their contention that TWC rules are consistent with § 607(d). The letter, written to Congressman Lloyd Doggett, states that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Comacho
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.