Citation network
Rosado Vs. Wyman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 06, 1970
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 397 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
U.S. 397 (1970) Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
this statutory claim in preference to deciding the original constitutional claim in this case follows from King v. SmithSearch
-
of three federal judges in a matter that was not required to be determined by a three-judge court. See Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
dismissal for mootness to dismissal for want of a substantial claim, and rely on language in United Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
The Court has shunned this view. See Moore v. NewSearch
-
recipients may trigger and participate in the Department's review of state welfare programs. Cf. Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The general topography of the AFDC program was mapped in part by this Court in King v. SmithSearch
-
While participating States must comply with the terms of the federal legislation, see King v. SmithSearch
-
will be paid. On both scores, Congress has always left to the States a great deal of discretion. King v. SmithSearch
-
experienced agency to harmonize an obscure enactment with the basic structure of a program it administers. Cf. Zuber v. AllenSearch
-
review to those individuals most directly affected by the administration of its program. Cf. Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSearch
-
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. CampSearch
-
ante, p. 397 U. S. 159 . We adhere to King v. SmithSearch
-
according to a plan that was inconsistent with federal requirements. The prayer in the District Court in Smith v. KingSearch
-
use federal funds while obscuring the actual extent to which their programs fall short of the ideal. Unlike King v. SmithSearch
-
conditions that Congress has attached to their use. As Mr. Justice Cardozo stated, speaking for the Court in Helvering v. DavisSearch
-
Cf. Lassen v. ArizonaSearch
-
again challenging the disparity in payments between New York and Nassau County welfare recipients. See Rothstein v. WymanSearch
-
See United Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
See Smith v. SperlingSearch
-
St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. RedSearch
-
See King v. SmithSearch
-
As we observed in Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co., Inc. v. RiverSearch
-
Far East Conference v. UnitedSearch
-
See Lampton v. BoninSearch
-
Williams v. DandridgeSearch
-
the number of persons in the unit, this latter procedure has been challenged on equal protection grounds, see Williams v. DandridgeSearch
-
been faced and decided below, so as to make a remand desirable prior to review and decision by this Court. Cf. Barlow v. CollinsSearch
-
called upon with increasing frequency to review not only the viability of state welfare procedures, e.g., Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
ante, p. 397 U. S. 254 , and Wheeler v. MontgomerySearch
-
substance and structure of state programs and the validity of innumerable individual provisions. See, e.g., Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
King v. SmithSearch
-
Solman v. ShapiroSearch
-
Lewis v. StarkSearch
-
to review various aspects of state programs in light of the statutory provisions involved in this case. See Lampton v. BoninSearch
-
Rothstein v. WymanSearch
-
opinion of the Court, I add a few words. I Our leading case on pendent jurisdiction is United Mine Workers v. GibbsSearch
-
test, which had been the controlling standard under Hurn v. OurslerSearch
-
had the power to decide that claim despite the dismissal of the constitutional claim. This Court held in United States v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
See Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial