Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 999 F.2d 684 - Himes v. Shalala

Himes v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis

999 F.2d 684 · 1993

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
11
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Campbell (2001), Juana Rodriguez Amelia Russo

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 11 states

410199320002010decided

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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Rust v. Sullivan · Baskett v. United States · Schweiker v. Hogan

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

  1. ““The Medicaid program was enacted in 1965 as Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 , 1396a-u (1988) (‘Medicaid Act’ or ‘the Act’), as a cooperative federal-state program designed to provide health care to needy individuals. Although a state is not required to participate in the Medicaid program, once it chooses to do so it must develop a plan that complies with the Medicaid statute and the Secretary’s regulations. [Citation omitted.] “A state, in administering its Medicaid program, must set reasonable standards for assessing an individual’s income and resources in determining eligibility for, and the extent of, medical assistance under the program. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17). Those standards must take into account ‘only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, available to the applicant or recipient.’42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17)(B).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘The Medicaid program was enacted in 1965 as Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C., §§ 1396 , 1396a-u (1988) (“Medicaid Act” or “the Act”), as a cooperative federal-state program designed to provide health care to needy individuals. Although a state is not required to participate in the Medicaid program, once it chooses to do so it must develop a plan that complies with the Medicaid statute and the Secretary’s regulations. [Citation omitted.] “ ‘A state, in administering its Medicaid program, must set reasonable standards for assessing an individual’s income and resources in determining eligibility for, and the extent of, medical assistance under the program. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17). Those standards must take into account “only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, available to the applicant or recipient.” 42 U.S.C. §1396a(a)(17)(B).’ [quoting Himes v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 684, 686 (2d Cir. 1993)]. “See Clark v. Commissioner, 209 Conn. 390, 394-96 , 551 A.2d 729 (1988). “Kansas has elected to participate in the Medicaid program. K.S.A. 39-708c gives the Secretary of SRS the power and duty to determine general policies relating to all forms of social welfare and to adopt rules and regulations therefor. K.S.A. 39-708c(s) requires the Secretary of SRS to develop plans financed by federal funds and/or state funds for providing medical care for needy persons. Pursuant to that statute, the Secretary o”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In Chevron, we held that a revised interpretation deserves deference because “[a]n initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone” and “the agency, to engage in informed rule making, must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis.” ... An agency is not required to “ ‘establish rules of conduct to last forever’ ”... but rather “must be given ample latitude to adapt [its] rules and policies to the demands of changing circumstances.””
    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.