Rush v. Parham’s Empirical Analysis
625 F.2d 1150 · 1980
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Mikes v. Straus (2001), Meriwether v. Faulkner (1987)
12 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
Relies on Harris v. McRae · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Beal v. Doe · Carter v. Seamans · Keiser v. Coliseum Properties, Inc.
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“generally accepted by the professional medical community as an effective and proven treatment for the condition”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Contents. A State plan for medical assistance must— (30)(A) provide such methods and procedures relating to the utilization of, and the payment for, care and services avail able under the plan (including but not limited to utilization review plans as provided for in section 1396b(i)(4) of this title) as may be necessary to safeguard against unnecessary utilization of such care and services and to assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“owe a duty to particular Medicaid recipients to disapprove a state Medicaid plan that improperly denies them benefits. We have been pointed to no statutory language explicitly creating such a duty, and to find one implicit in the overall Medicaid scheme would likely alter the general supervisory responsibilities of the federal government therein.”
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.