42 U.S.C. § 1392

Availability of funds during certain fiscal years; limitation on amount; utilization of grant

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

The sums appropriated pursuant to the first sentence of section 1391 of this title shall be available for grants to States by the Secretary during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and the succeeding fiscal year; and the sums appropriated pursuant to the second sentence of such section for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, shall be available for such grants during such year and the next two fiscal years, and sums appropriated pursuant thereto for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, shall be available for such grants during such year and the succeeding fiscal year. Any such grant to a State, which shall not exceed 75 per centum of the cost of the planning and related activities involved, may be used by it to determine what action is needed to combat mental retardation in the State and the resources available for this purpose, to develop public awareness of the mental retardation problem and of the need for combating it, to coordinate State and local activities relating to the various aspects of mental retardation and its prevention, treatment, or amelioration, and to plan other activities leading to comprehensive State and community action to combat mental retardation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1981–1996 · leading case: Palmer v. Brown
Palmer v. Brown (1988) kan “42 U.S.C. § 1392 (1982). To qualify for funds, a state’s medical assistance plan must be approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and operated in accordance with federal standards.”
United States v. Duz-Mor Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. (1981) ca9 “California participates in the federal Medicaid medical assistance system, 42 U.S.C. § 1392 , et seq.”
Foy v. S.M.A. Ins. Agency (1996) nhd “The court agrees with plaintiff that this evidence supplies the necessary predicate to support venue, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1392 .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.