557 F. Supp. 879 - Thomas v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Arkansas Medical Society, Inc. v. Reynolds (1993), Amisub Inc Ami Ami Ami v. State of Colorado Department of Social Services M
13 federal appellate · 2 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 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 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. § 1396B (§ 1903 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 · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Edelman v. Jordan · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“which the state finds, and makes assurances satisfactory to the Secretary, are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable state and federal laws....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Nor does the Court find persuasive Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs lack the requisite personal interest or stake in this controversy. While it is true that payments for ICF-MR care under the Medicaid program are made to providers, and that the benefits accruing to Medicaid recipients under the ICF-MR program are in one sense indirect, if is abundantly clear that it is Medicaid recipients and not Medicaid providers who are the intended beneficiaries of the Medicaid program. See, e.g., Green v. Cashman, 605 F.2d 945, 946 (6th Cir.1979); Case v. Weinberger, 528 F.2d 602 , 607 (2nd Cir.1975); Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Association v. Department of Public Welfare, 542 F.Supp. 1349, 1855-56 (W.D.Pa.1982)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Committee continues to believe that States should have flexibility in developing methods of payment for their medicaid programs.... The flexibility given the States is not intended to encourage arbitrary reductions in payment that would adversely affect the quality of care.”
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.