Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Cesar Perales (1986)
green
· 42 citation events
across 11 courts.
Showing the 39 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198620062026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
New York v. Bowen (1987)
Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26, 27 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 68 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986).
green
State of New York v. Bowen (1987)
Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26, 27 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 68 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986).
green
Arcidiacono v. Whitehorn (2024)
These regulations prevent providers from “seeking contributions from patients beyond the limits set by the Medicaid regulatory scheme.” Banks, 997 F.2d at 243–44 (citing Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir. 1986)).
green
(PC) Crane v. Lopez (2023)
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986); see Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th 27 Cir. 2009) (noting “the two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default 28 Judgment’”).
green
Debbs v. Valley Convalscent Hospital (2022)
Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 26 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
green
Corral v. California Highway Patrol (2021)
Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 26 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 26 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
green
Cleveland v. United States Department of Agriculture (2020)
Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 26 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
green
Conrad v. Perales (2000)
Principally, the Commissioner relies on the Second Circuit’s decision in Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir.1986).
green
Clark v. Commissioner of Income Maintenance (1988)
Paragraph (c) specifically lists only four amounts an agency may deduct from a “medically needy” applicant’s total income: (1) a personal needs allowance; (2) an at-home spousal allowance; (3) an at-home family allowance; and (4) medical or remedial expenses not paid by third parties. 42 C.F.R. § 435.832 (c); 9 see Mattingly by Mattingly v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 258 , 266 (7th Cir. 1986); Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied,…
green
Backer Ex Rel. Freedman v. Shah (2015)
See Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26, 27-28 (2d Cir.1986); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(q)(1)(A).
See Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir.) ( 42 C.F.R. § 447.15 prevents health care providers from seeking contributions from patients beyond the limits set by the Medicaid regulatory scheme), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 68 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986).
See Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir.) ( 42 C.F.R. § 447.15 prevents health care providers from seeking contributions from patients beyond the limits set by the Medicaid regulatory scheme), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 68 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986). 53 The Secretary interprets this language to embrace instances where a state agency refuses payment as well as situations where reimbursement is made according to established rates.
green
Compagnie Maritime Marfret v. Natural Waters, Inc. (2019)
See Eitel, 782 F.2d 26 at 1471–72.
green
Stout v. Essilor of America, Inc. (2022)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Barboza, Jr. v. Mason (2022)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Quhshi v. United States (2022)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Fatte Alberts v. Pizzaman's Pavilion (2022)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Narain v. M.A.C. Cosmetics, Inc. (2022)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Musser v. California Dairies, Inc. (2021)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Urista v. Midland Funding, LLC (2021)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472–73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Ritter v. ESA Management, LLC (2021)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Moore v. County of Merced (2021)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472–73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 28 1 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 2 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Ewing v. Reliant Credit Repair, LLC (2020)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding default judgments generally are disfavored because 27 “cases should be decided on their merits whenever reasonably possible”).
holding default judgments generally are disfavored because 27 “cases should be decided on their merits whenever reasonably possible”
green
Valdovinos De Sanchez v. FCA US LLC (2020)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 28 1 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 2 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Bennett v. Chase Bank USA N.A. (2019)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Block v. Jasjit Corporation (2019)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Jacqueline S. Finley v. Yosemite Hospitality LLC (2019)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
International Lining Technology v. Wood Bros, Inc. (2019)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 28 1 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 2 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Green v. Darling Ingredients Inc. (2019)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Williams v. Kings Credit Services (2019)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Acosta v. Lopez (2019)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 28 1 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 2 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Acosta v. Vue (2019)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 28 1 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 2 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Marisela Rivera v. EGS Financial Care, Inc. (2019)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
Neufeld v. Capital Bank N.A. (2019)
See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 26 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 28 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal.
green
In Re Guardianship of Lamb (2010)
Co., 461 U.S. at 204 , 103 S.Ct. 1713 ); see also Hankins v. Finnel, 964 F.2d 853, 861 (8th Cir.1992). [25] See 42 C.F.R. §§ 435.725 , 435.733, 435.832, and 436.832. [26] See Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir.1986) (stating that 42 C.F.R. §§ 435.725 and 435.832 "are consistent with the statutory plan that Medicaid funds not be paid to reimburse those costs that patients with resources of their own can afford"). [27] 188 Wash. 396 , 63 P.2d…
green
In re the Guardianship of Lamb (2009)
See Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir. 1986) (stating that 42 C.F.R. §§ 435.725 and 435.832 “are consistent with the statutory plan that Medicaid funds not be paid to reimburse those costs that patients with resources of their own can afford”). 188 Wash. 396 , 63 P.2d 397 (1936).
stating that 42 C.F.R. §§ 435.725 and 435.832 “are consistent with the statutory plan that Medicaid funds not be paid to reimburse those costs that patients with resources of their own can afford”
See Florence Nightingale Nursing Home v. Perales, 782 F.2d 26 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 68 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986).