Legal Opinion
Peebler v. Reno
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided May 5, 1997No. Civil CV 97-256-HAPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED OPINION and ORDER
HAGGERTY, District Judge:
On February 14, 1997, Plaintiffs filed this action for declaratory relief seeking a judicial declaration that 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(a)(6) is unconstitutional. On April 2, 1997, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
In 1988, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c) (“§ 1396”) which requires a period of ineligibility for Medicaid benefits in response to the applicant’s transfer of assets for the purpose of obtaining…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- William Stoianoff D/B/A the Joint Effort, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. State of Montana, Defendants-Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re DiCeccoNew York Supreme Court · 1997