State of West Virginia v. Matthew S. Dixon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that doctors in abortion clinics had standing to challenge a city ordinance that impinged on a woman’s right to an abortion
• holding that physicians have standing to contest a statute excluding certain abortions from medicaid benefits
• holding that doctors had standing to challenge--on behalf of women patients in general--a Missouri law banning Medicaid reimbursement for abortions that were not medically required
• holding that “[i]t is the general rule ... that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue hot passed upon below”
• ruling that respondent-physicians suffered concrete injury from an antiabortion statute that denied physicians Medicaid reimbursement for abortions not “medically indicated”
• holding that terms of offer were still effective even though offeror had signed acceptance form

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).