464 F. Supp. 487 - Roe v. Casey’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2000 · most notably Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986), 855 F. Supp. 1123 - Sobky v. Smoley (1994)
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1320C · 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Roe v. Wade · Singleton v. Wulff · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“include reasonable standards * * * for determining eligibility for and the extent of medical assistance under the plan.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Marsh v. Commonwealth · Jane E. Hodgson, M. D. Midwest Health Center for Women, Inc. Paula Poe Sandra Lackey and All Others Similarly Situated v. Board of County Commissioners, County of Hennepin John E. Derus, Chairman Jeff Spartz Thomas E. Ticen Richard E. Kremer E. F. Robb, Jr. Sam S. Sivanich Nancy Olkon Robert Randle, Director, Medical Assistance Program, Department of Public Health Thomas Jolicoeur, Supervisor, Medical Advisory Unit Edward J. Dirkswager, Jr., Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare Department of Public Welfare of the State of Minnesota, Carolyn Coe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and Mark Tanz, M. D., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Edward J. Dirkswager, Jr., Individually and in His Capacity as Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Public Welfare and State of Minnesota, Department of Public Welfare Howard Kelly, Individually and in His Capacity as Division Director, Hennepin County Department of Economic Assistance, Adult Medical Division, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Directors of County Department of Economic Assistance, Adult Medical Division for All Other Counties in the State of Minnesota“We find that the clear meaning of [42 C.F.E. §449.10(a)(5)(i)] implementing Title XIX require [s] the states to provide at least the minimum necessary medical services required for the successful treatment of the particular medical condition presented. We find, further, that these implementing regulations while permitting states to exclude or limit some unnecessary medical services if in its discretion it chooses to do so, flatly prohibit a state from excluding entirely or limiting below the minimum treatment required any category or type of necessary medical services except for reasons either not relating to, or in addition to, the diagnosis, type of illness or condition. (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although serious statutory questions might be presented if a state medicaid plan excluded necessary medical treatment from its coverage, it is hardly inconsistent with the objectives of the Act for a state to refuse to fund unnecessary— though perhaps desirable — medical services. (Emphasis in original).”
2 later decisions 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.