Sullivan v. Day’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Indiana Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co. v. State Ex Rel. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission (1998), Durham Ex Rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul International (2001)
2 federal appellate · 37 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 42 U.S.C. § 1351 (§ 1401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 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)
Relies on Schweiker v. Gray Panthers · TINDER, PROS. ATTY. v. Music Op. Inc. · Clifft v. Indiana Department of State Revenue · Indiana Department of Public Welfare v. Payne · Superior Construction Co. v. Carr
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[t]he object of statutory construction is to determine, give effect to, and implement the intent of the legislature. If a statute is susceptible to reasonable and intelligible construction, it is the duty of the court to construe it to give effect and validity to each provision thereof. The statute is examined as a whole, and while the language itself is analyzed, this Court will refrain from overemphasizing a strict literal or selective reading of individual ivords.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The named plaintiff in this class action, Petricia Day, is a 55-year-old former nurse’s aid suffering from a severe degenerative condition of her right knee. She was told by her orthopedic specialist that she needed total knee replacement surgery, which she could not afford. Day applied for assistance under Indiana’s Medicaid program. Under the statute in effect at the time, Medicaid would be provided to needy persons who had “a physical or mental impairment, disease, or loss that ... appears reasonably certain to continue throughout the lifetime of the individual without significant improvement ...” Ind.Code Ann. § 12-14-15-1(2) (West 1994) (eligibility for Supplemental Assistance for Persons with Disabilities); Ind.Code Ann. § 12-15-2-3 (West 1994) (persons receiving such assistance are eligible for Medicaid). An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied Day’s application on the basis that her condition was not reasonably certain to continue for the remainder of her lifetime because it was treatable by surgery. FSSA affirmed the ALJ’s determination. Day filed a petition for judicial review combined with a class action complaint against the defendants seeking reversal of FSSA’s determination and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief for persons similarly situated. The parties agreed to certification of the following class of plaintiffs: All individuals in Indiana who have had or will have applications for benefits under Ind.Code § 12-14-15 denied ... based on the state ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Humphreys v. Day“Assistance shall be given under the provisions of this act to any needy disabled person hereinafter referred to as “disabled person” who: (a) has a physical or mental impairment, disease, or loss which is verifiable by a physician possessing an unlimited license to practice medicine in this state and which appears reasonably certain to continue throughout the lifetime of the individual without significant improvement, and which substantially impairs his ability to perform labor or services or to engage in a useful occupation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Humphreys v. Day
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.