# M.R. v. Dreyfus

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 16, 2011 · 697 F.3d 706

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485130

## Case

- **Full name:** M.R.; S.J.; C.B.; D.W.; A.B.; M.B.; An. B.; J.B.; K.S.; T.M.; A.R.; M.J.B.; J.H.; H.C.; The Arc of Washington; Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775NW; Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Susan DREYFUS, in Her Professional Capacity as Secretary of Washington State Department of Social and Health Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, a Department of the State of Washington, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 16, 2011
- **Citations:** 697 F.3d 706; 2012 WL 2218824
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Bea, Reinhardt, Fletcher, Rawlinson
- **Cited by:** 184 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485130

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing violation where plaintiffs established that “reduced access to' personal care services will place them at serious risk of institutionalization”
- recognizing violation where plaintiffs established that “reduced access to personal care services will place them at serious risk of institutionalization”
- noting that a statement of interest filed by the United States “under 28 U.S.C. § 517 is comparable to amicus brief” and does not confer “party” status on the United States or the federal agency that it represents

## Opinion text

Order; Dissent to Order by Judge BEA; Opinion by Judge WILLIAM A. FLETCHER; Dissent to Opinion by Judge RAWLINSON.
ORDER
The opinion filed December 16, 2011, and published at 663 F.3d 1100 , is amended as follows:
On page 1107, right column, lines 16-19: delete to
On page 1121, left column, lines 17-19: change to <At the time we reviewed this appeal, the district court had yet to rule on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certifications
With these amendments, Judges Reinhardt and W. Fletcher have voted to deny Plaintiffs-Appellants’ petition for rehearing and Defendants-Appellees’ petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Rawlinson has voted to deny Plaintiff-Appellants’ petition for rehearing and to grant Defendants-Appellees’ petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.
A judge of the court called for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. A vote was taken, and a majority of the active judges of the court failed to vote for en banc rehearing. Fed. R.App. P. 35(f).
The petitions for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed. The mandate shall be issued forthwith.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485130. Public record. Not legal advice.