Sanders v. Pilley’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2010
1 district · 5 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. § 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. § 1396P (§ 1917 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Schweiker v. Gray Panthers · Philbrook v. Glodgett · Atkins v. Rivera · Save Ourselves, Inc. v. La. Environ. Cont. Com'n · 746 F. Supp. 19 - Miller v. Ibarra
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question of whether or not the assets comprising the ... [t]rust can be considered as a resource for determining... Medicaid eligibility clearly requires an interpretation of statutory law and an application of the law to the facts of this case. Thus, [LDHH] is incorrect in its assertion that its prior resolution of this question constitutes a finding of fact which must be afforded great deference upon review. Appellate review of question[s] of law is simply review of whether the lower court was legally correct or legally incorrect. If the district court was correct in its determination that [LDHH's] decision to discontinue Medicaid benefits was contrary to law and public policy, its reversal of [LDHH's] decision would be appropriate. (Citations omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by other error of law; (5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or (6) Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as determined by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule, the court shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact by a preponderance of evidence based upon its own evaluation of the record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency’s determination of credibility issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[u]nder the prior law applicable to this case,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.