499 F. Supp. 607 - Potter v. James’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2002
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2202 · 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)
Relies on King v. Smith · Friedman v. Berger · 433 F. Supp. 1325 - Alabama Nursing Home Ass'n v. Califano · Williams v. St. Clair · De Freese v. United States
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.
“However, inadequate funding does not excuse failure to comply with federal standards. [Citations omitted.] There is no provision, express or implied, in the Social Security Act permitting a state to alter federal standards to suit its budgetary needs. State participation in the Social Security Act programs is voluntary, and the state may withdraw if it wishes____ If a state could evade the requirements of the Act simply by failing to meet them, it could rewrite the Congressionally imposed standards at will____ Alabama must meet the statutory requirements so long as it remains in the Medicaid program, regardless of budgetary considerations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The State may require the use of all the excess income of the individual toward his medical expenses, or some proportion of that amount. In no event, however, ... may a State require the use of income or resources which would reduce the individual below the level determined by the State as necessary for his maintenance.”
1 later decision 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.