Franssen v. Juras’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396B (§ 1903 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Rosado v. Wyman · King v. Smith · Townsend v. Swank · Carleson v. Remillard
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congressional purpose to calculate need with real rather than presumed dollars is evident from the report of the House Ways and Means Committee that accompanied the Medicaid bill. These provisions are designed so that the States will not assume the availability of income which may not in fact be available or over-evaluate income and resources which are available. Examples of income assumed include support orders from absent fathers which have not been paid or contributions from relatives which are not in reality received by the needy individual.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Burns v. Vowell · Herweg v. Ray“(a) A State plan for medical assistance must— (17) include reasonable standards (which shall be comparable for all groups and may, in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, differ with respect to income levels, . . .) for determining eligibility for and the extent of medical assistance under the plan which (A) are consistent with the objectives of this subchapter, (B) provide for taking into account only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by¡ the Secretary, available to the applicant or recipient . (C) provide for reasonable evaluation of any such income or resources, and (D) do not take into account the financial responsibility of any individual for any applicant or recipient of assistance under the plan unless such applicant or recipient is such individual’s spouse or such individual’s child who is under age 21 . . . . (Emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Herweg v. Ray“The relevant section (42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a) (17)(D)) is intended to authorize a state mechanism for enforcing financial responsibility of relatives, not to permit presumptions forbidden elsewhere in the statute. Oregon until recently had such a mechanism, but it never applied to Medical Assistance and the Plaintiffs here had incomes well below the level that would have activated a demand for contribution. Nothing in our decision in this case, we should note, prevents the State from re-enacting a relative responsibility law and making it applicable to Medicaid, . . ..”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. Stanton
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.