440 F. Supp. 383 - Rush v. Parham’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Meriwether v. Faulkner (1987), Preterm, Inc. v. Dukakis (1979)
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 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. § 1396D (§ 1905 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396E (§ 1906 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396H (§ 1909 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · King v. Smith
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[to enable] each State, as far as practicable ..., to furnish (1) medical assistance on behalf of families with dependent children and of aged, blind, or disabled individuals, whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services .... (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) The plan must specify the amount and duration of each service that it provides. (b) Each service must be sufficient in amount, duration, and scope to reasonably achieve its purpose. (c) (1) The medicaid agency may not deny or reduce the amount, duration, or scope of a required service under §§ 440.210 [for the categorically needy] and 440.220 [for the medically needy] to an otherwise eligible recipient solely because of the diagnosis, type of illness, or condition. (2) The agency may place appropriate limits on a service based on medical necessity or on utilization control procedures.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Busbee · Zbaraz v. Quern“(1) inpatient hospital services; (2) outpatient hospital services; (3) laboratory and x-ray services; (4) (A) skilled nursing facility services; (B) early and periodic screening and diagnosis for persons under 21 years of age; (C) family planning services and supplies; (5) physicians services (whether furnished in the office, patient’s home, a hospital, skilled nursing facility or elsewhere).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Busbee
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.