Legal Opinion

Soskin v. Reinertson

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided January 12, 2004No. 03-1162PublishedCited by 62 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs represent a class of legal aliens who will lose their Medicaid benefits when last year’s Colorado Senate Bill OS-176 (SB 03-176) takes effect. They contend that the eligibility requirements of SB 03-176 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that the state’s procedures for terminating benefits violate Medicaid law and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against implementation of SB 03-176. We granted an…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Plyler v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Graham v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971

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

3Cited by62 opinions

  1. Schaefer v. Las Cruces Public School DistrictDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2010
  2. Elkins v. ComfortCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
  3. Petrella v. BrownbackCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
  4. Bruns v. MayhewCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
  5. Ehrlich v. PerezCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006

57 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