Legal Opinion

Vance v. Hegstrom

District Court, D. Oregon

Decided September 11, 1985No. Civ. 85-510-FRPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FRYE, Judge:

The matters before the court are:

1. plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction;

2. plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment;

3. defendant United States’ cross motion for summary judgment; and

4. defendant State of Oregon’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs are heads of households who have been receiving both Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) and Medicaid benefits. As ADC recipients, plaintiffs have been automatically eligible for Medicaid, unless they maintain other health insurance.

Plaintiffs challenge certain actions taken by the defendant, State of Oregon, after…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  2. Massachusetts Association of Older Americans v. Alexander Sharp, Ii, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
  3. Gene Sapper v. Lenco Blade, Inc., a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  4. Gibson v. PuettDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1985
  5. Olson v. ReagenDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1986

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Vance v. HegstromCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  2. Malloy Ex Rel. Malloy v. EichlerDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1986
  3. Reed v. BlinzingerDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 1986
  4. Sundberg v. MansourDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1986
  5. Gibson v. PuettDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1985

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API