Johnson v. Guhl’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

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

1. “Because Medicaid is available only to the needy, creative lawyers and financial planners have devised various ways to `shield' wealthier claimants' assets in determining Medicaid eligibility.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lewis ex rel. Young v. Alexander · Me. Pooled Disability Trust v. Hamilton

2. “The exceptions to the transfer of assets penalties regarding interspousal transfers and transfers to a third party for the sole benefit of a spouse apply even under the spousal impoverishment provisions. Thus, the institutional spouse can transfer unlimited assets to the community spouse or to a third party for the sole benefit of the community spouse. When transfers between spouses are involved, the unlimited transfer exception should have little effect on the eligibility determination, primarily because resources belonging to both spouses are combined in determining eligibility for the institutionalized spouse. Thus, resources transferred to a community spouse are still [to] be considered available to the institutionalized spouse for eligibility purposes. The exception for transfers to a third party for the sole benefit of the spouse may have greater impact on eligibility because resources may potentially be placed beyond the reach of either spouse and thus not be counted for eligibility purposes. However, for the exception to be applicable, the definition of what is for the sole benefit of the spouse (see § 3257) must be fully met. This definition is fairly restrictive, in that it requires that any funds transferred be spent for the benefit of the spouse within a time-frame actuarially commensurate with the spouse[']s life expectancy. If this requirement is not met, the exemption is void, and a transfer to a third party may then be subject to a transfer penalty.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 758 F. Supp. 2d 1212 - Morris v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services · 758 F. Supp. 2d 1212 - Morris v. OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

3. “[i]n the case of an irrevocable trust-if there are any circumstances under which payment from the trust could be made to or for the benefit of [the institutionalized spouse whose assets are used to establish the trust], the portion of the corpus from which, or the income on the corpus from which, payment to the individual could be made shall be considered resources available to the individual. ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roselyn Ford v. Department of Health and Human Services