Purser v. Rahm

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the equitable treatment of married people under community property law does no ‘major damage’ to the ‘clear and substantial’ objectives of the Medicaid law”
• “Nothing in the Medicaid statute or regulations establishes federal criteria for determining ownership of income.”
• requiring state Medicaid administrator to apply community-property law in determining eligibility for benefits instead of name-on-the-check rule
• \The equitable treatment of married people under community property law does no 'major damage' to the 'clear and substantial' objectives of the Medicaid law.\
• the equities may require maintenance of the status quo to preserve the fruits of a successful appeal
• “The equitable treatment of married people under community property law does no ‘major damage’ to the ‘clear and substantial’ objectives of the Medicaid law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).