Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 734 F.3d 473 - Hughes v. McCarthy

Hughes v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis

734 F.3d 473 · 2013

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Ohio Northern District Court)

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 2002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396R (§ 1919 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396R (§ 1924 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Christensen v. Harris County

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To the extent that HHS has issued guidance on the federal Medicaid statutes in the form of [the amicus brief and opinion letters] that lack the force of law, its statutory interpretations are not afforded deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), but are entitled to respect under ... Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 , 65 S.Ct. 161 , 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944), only to the extent that those interpretations have the power to persuade.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Transmittal 64, § 3258.9(B) states, in relevant part: [i]n order to avoid penalizing annuities validly purchased as part of a retirement plan but to capture those annuities which abusively shelter assets, a determination must be made with regard to the ultimate purpose of the annuity (i.e., whether the purchase of the annuity constitutes a transfer of assets for less than fair market value). If the expected return on the annuity is commensurate with a reasonable estimate of the life expectancy of the beneficiary, the annuity can be deemed actuarially sound.... If the individual is not reasonably expected to live longer than the guarantee period of the annuity, the individual will not receive fair market value for the annuity based on the projected return.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “unless ... (i) the State is named as the remainder beneficiary in the first position for at least the total amount of medical assistance paid on behalf of the institutionalized individual under this subchapter; or (ii) the State is named as such a beneficiary in the second position after the community spouse or minor or disabled child and is named in the first position if such spouse or a representative of such child disposes of any such remainder for less than fair market value.”
    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.