Center for Special Needs Trust Administration, Inc. v. Olson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that case was not moot because state expressly reserved its right to apply the challenged regulation against plaintiff in the future
• concluding that case was not moot because “North Dakota expressly reserved the right to apply its regulations against [plaintiff] in the future,” and plaintiffs had already suffered injury in the past
• explaining that when Congress uses “particular language” in one section of a statute but different terminology in another, we “generally presume[]” Congress intended a difference in meaning
• concluding that similar documents hold only persuasive value
• finding a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(C)
• finding a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(C)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).