Lynch v. Rank

763 F.2d 1098
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJune 20, 1985
Docket84-1857
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 763 F.2d 1098 (Lynch v. Rank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lynch v. Rank, 763 F.2d 1098 (3d Cir. 1985).

Opinion

763 F.2d 1098

Medicare&Medicaid Gu 34,934
Raymon and Joann LYNCH; Charles and Erestine Dauphine;
Rose Rosenthal; Sarine Lisberg; Ellen Beezy; Leona H.
Allen; William C. Beer; and California Gray Panthers
Foundation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees,
v.
Peter RANK, Director of the Department of Health Services of
the State of California; Department of Health Services of
the State of California; Michael Franchetti, Director of
Department of Finance of the State of California, Defendants-Appellees,
and
Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Department of Health and
Human Services, Third Party Defendant
Appellee-Cross Appellants.

No. 83-2343, 84-1857.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 12, 1984.
Decided June 20, 1985.

Evelyn R. Frank, Legal Aid Society of Alameda County, Oakland, Cal., Terry B. Friedman, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Gil Deford, Nat. Senior Citizens Law Cntr., Byron Gross, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and Daniel Brzovic, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants, cross-appellees.

Christopher Stoll, Asst. U.S. Atty., Cade Morrow, Asst. Regional Atty., Dept. of Health & Human Services, Catherine M. Van Aken, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; William H. Orrick, Judge.

Before WALLACE, FLETCHER and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The petition for rehearing is granted. The second-to-last paragraph of our opinion in this case, 747 F.2d 528, 536 (beginning "The statute itself ...") is deleted. In all other respects, the opinion is reaffirmed. The mandate shall now issue in due course.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Citizens Action League v. Kizer
887 F.2d 1003 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Meridian Land & Mineral Co. v. Hodel
843 F.2d 340 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
Vance v. Hegstrom
793 F.2d 1018 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
763 F.2d 1098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-rank-ca3-1985.