White v. Beal’s Empirical Analysis
555 F.2d 1146 · 1977
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 7 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Mahone v. Waddle (1977), Preterm, Inc. v. Dukakis (1979)
21 federal appellate · 7 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Hagans v. Lavine · Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida New York · Jefferson v. Hackney · Mathews v. De Castro
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he State may not arbitrarily deny or reduce the amount, duration or scope of, such services to an otherwise eligible individual solely because of the diagnosis, type of illness, or condition. Appropriate limits may be placed on- services based on such criteria as medical necessity or those contained in utilization or medical review procedures.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“underlying federal purpose of providing the service to those in greatest need of it”
4 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.”
3 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.