green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.0 score
“nothing in the medicaid statute or regulations establishes federal criteria for determining ownership of income.”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
WT v. Div. of Med. Assistance and Health Services
nothing in the medicaid statute or regulations establishes federal criteria for determining ownership of income.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Wells
See In re Waldron, 785 F.2d 936, 940 (11th Cir.1986), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 ; see also In re Bofill, 25 B.R. 550 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1982); In re Marina Enterprises, 14 B.R. 327 (holding financially troubled debtors not precluded from using Chapter 7 or 11 solely to avoid executory contract).
discussed
Cited "see"
Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials America, Inc.
See Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Northern Petrochemical Co., 784 F.2d 351, 354 , 228 USPQ 837, 840 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986). 21 The district court held that the amendments to the process claims during subsequent prosecution of the divisional '609 application did not eliminate the benefit of § 121 from the ensuing patent.
cited
Cited "see"
Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials America, Inc.
See Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Northern Petrochemical Co., 784 F.2d 351, 354 , 228 USPQ 837, 840 (Fed.Cir.), ce rt. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
LM v. State, Div. of Med. Assist. & Health Serv.
“While the Medicaid statute provides a detailed definition of income for purposes of th[e] [income] cap, it does not specify rules for determining ownership of that income, particularly as between spouses.” New Mexico, supra, 4 F.3d at 883; accord Purser v. Rahm, 104 Wash.2d 159 , 702 P.2d 1196, 1201 (1985) (“Nothing in the Medicaid statute or regulations establishes federal criteria for determining ownership of income.”), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1029 , 107 S.Ct. 8 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Leslie Fay Companies v. Corporate Property Associates 3 (In Re Leslie Fay Companies)
See In re Waldron, 36 B.R. 633, 641-642 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1984), rev’d on other grounds, 785 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
New Mexico Department of Human Services v. Department of Health & Human Services Health Care Financing Administration
See Purser v. Rahm, 104 Wash.2d 159 , 702 P.2d 1196, 1200-01 (1985) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1029 , 107 S.Ct. 8 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986); see also Washington v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 549 , 553 (9th Cir.1987) (name-on-the-check rule for determining ownership of income has no explicit basis in either Medicaid statute or regulations).
discussed
Cited "see"
New Mexico Department Of Human Services v. Department Of Health And Human Services Health Care Financing Administration
See Purser v. Rahm, 104 Wash.2d 159 , 702 P.2d 1196, 1200-01 (1985) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1029 , 107 S.Ct. 8 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986); see also Washington v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 549 , 553 (9th Cir.1987) (name-on-the-check rule for determining ownership of income has no explicit basis in either Medicaid statute or regulations).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Funk
See In re Waldron, 785 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.1986), cert. dismissed sub nom Waldron v. Shell Oil Co., 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Carl C.
See In re Waldron, 785 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.1986), cert. dismissed sub nom Waldron v. Shell Oil Co., 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Baker
See In re Waldron, 785 F.2d 936, 941 (11th Cir.1986), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986) (“[W]henever a Chapter 13 petition appears to be tainted with a questionable purpose, it is incumbent upon the bankruptcy courts to examine and question the debtor’s motive.”) (emphasis added); see also In re Whitelock, 122 B.R. 582, 591 (Bankr.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Panache Development Co., Inc.
RLS, creditor and holder of the RLS Option, is a party in interest and has standing to bring the Motion to Dismiss. 11 U.S.C. § 1112 (b); See In re Waldron, 785 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.1986), cert dismissed sub nom., Waldron v. Shell Oil Company, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986). 5.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Detienne Associates Ltd. Partnership
See also Shell Oil Co. v. Waldron (In re Waldron), 785 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.), (Chapter 13 petition dismissed because of bad faith filing.), cert, dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
9281 Shore Road Owners Corp. v. Seminole Realty Co. (In Re 9281 Shore Road Owners Corp.)
In re Phoenix Piccadilly, 849 F.2d 1393 , 1394 (11th Cir.1988); Albany Partners, Ltd. v. Westbrook, 749 F.2d 670, 674 (11th Cir.1984); see also Shell Oil Co. v. Waldron, 785 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.) cert. dism. 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
First Jersey National Bank v. Brown (In Re Brown)
Co., 779 F.2d 1068, 1072 (5th Cir.1986); In re Albany Partners Ltd., 749 F.2d 670, 674 (11th Cir.1984); In re Ravick Corp., 106 B.R. 834, 842 (Bankr.D.N.J. 1989); HBA East, 87 B.R. at 258 ; see also In re Waldron, 785 F.2d 936, 939 (11th Cir.) (examining good faith requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (a)(3)), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County
See Harper v. New Mexico Dept. of Human Services, 95 N.M. 471 , 623 P.2d 985 (1980); Duran v. New Mexico Dept. of Human Services, 95 N.M. 196 , 619 P.2d 1240 (App.1980); see also Purser v. Rahm, 104 Wash.2d 159 , 702 P.2d 1196 (1985), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1029 , 107 S.Ct. 8 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986), all holding that the uniform federal regulation, which was meant to apply to all states (both community and non-community property), had to be interpreted in the context of local law.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re North Redington Beach Associates, Ltd.
See also, In re Waldron, 785 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.), (Chapter 13 petition dismissed because of bad faith filing), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd. v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia (In re Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd.)
See also Shell Oil Co. v. Waldron (In re Waldron), 785 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.), (Chapter 13 petition dismissed because of bad faith filing.), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,355 in Re Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd., Debtor. Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd. v. Life Insurance Company of Virginia, in Re Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd., Debtor. Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd. v. Meritor Savings Bank, in Re Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd., Debtor. Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd. v. Future Federal Savings Bank of Louisville, Kentucky, in Re Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd., Debtor. Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd., A/k/a, D/B/A Piccadilly Square Apartment Community v. Future Federal Savings Bank of Louisville, Kentucky, Meritor Savings Bank and Life Insurance Company of Virginia
See also Shell Oil Co. v. Waldron (In re Waldron), 785 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.), (Chapter 13 petition dismissed because of bad faith filing.), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028 , 106 S.Ct. 3343 , 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986). 7 Although what amounts to bad faith is the same for both proceedings, there is no particular test for determining whether a debtor has filed a petition in bad faith.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Messer
v.
Kemp, Warden
v.
Kemp, Warden
No. A-5.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jul 8, 1986.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: New Jersey Superior Court App … (1)
Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, is granted pending the timely filing and disposition by this Court of a petition for writ of certio-rari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.