Bertrand v. Maram’s Empirical Analysis
495 F.3d 452 · 2007
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Commissioner of Indiana State Department of Health (2012), McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co. (2012)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396N (§ 1915 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · United States v. Mead Corp. · Sosna v. Iowa · Maine v. Thiboutot
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A state plan for medical assistance must . . . provide that all individuals wishing to make application for medical assistance under the plan shall have opportunity to do so, and that such assistance shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals. . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“effectual relief to a larger class of victims”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Secretary may by waiver provide that a State plan approved under this subchap-ter may include as “medical assistance” under such plan payment for part or all of the cost of home or community-based services (other than room and board) approved by the Secretary which are provided pursuant to a written plan of care to individuals with respect to whom there has been a determination that but for the provision of such services the individuals would require the level of care provided in a hospital or a nursing facility or intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded the cost of which could be reimbursed under the State plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Susan J. v. Riley
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.