Hogan v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 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)
Relies on Harris v. McRae · Schweiker v. Hogan · Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles · Donovan v. Dewey · Caldwell v. Blum
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“States are no longer required to apply a uniform methodology for treating income and resources in such matters as deemed income, interest, court-ordered support payments, and infrequent and irregular income. Rather the state plan must specify the methodology that will be used; and that methodology must be reasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a state Medicaid] agency must use a prospective period of not more than 6 months to compute income.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“with flexibility in establishing eligibility criteria and scope of services within the medically needy program to address the needs of different population groups more appropriately,”
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.