Citation network
Dandridge Vs. Williams
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 471 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
U.S. 471 (1970) Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
Act. Pp. 397 U. S. 476 -483. (a) A State has great latitude in dispensing its available funds, King v. SmithSearch
-
of each eligible family unit within its borders. See generally Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
appellees' position on this question is correct, there is no occasion to reach the constitutional issues. Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
See King v. SmithSearch
-
entire family is diminished because of the presence of additional children without any increase in payments. Cf. King v. SmithSearch
-
reasons that follow, we have concluded that the Maryland regulation is permissible under the federal law. In King v. SmithSearch
-
upon activity protected by the First Amendment, its very overbreadth may make it unconstitutional. See, e.g., Shelton v. TuckerSearch
-
Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
U. S. 483 , 348 U. S. 488 . That Page 397 U. S. 485 era long ago passed into history. Ferguson v. SkrupaSearch
-
Lindsley v. NaturalSearch
-
Metropolis Theatre Co. v. CitySearch
-
See Snell v. WymanSearch
-
has consistently been applied to State legislation restricting the availability of employment opportunities. Goesaert v. ClearySearch
-
Kotch v. BoardSearch
-
of River Port Pilot Comm'rs, 330 U. S. 552 . See also Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
U. S. 487 choose between attacking every aspect of a problem or not attacking the problem at all. Lindsley v. NaturalSearch
-
this Court. The Constitution may impose certain procedural safeguards upon systems of welfare administration, Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
of allocating limited public welfare funds among the myriad of potential recipients. Cf. Steward Mach. Co. v. DavisSearch
-
Helvering v. DavisSearch
-
of his judgment, whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the trial court. Compare Langnes v. GreenSearch
-
U. S. 531 , 282 U. S. 538 , with Story Parchment Co. v. PatersonSearch
-
Parchment Paper Co., 282 U. S. 555 , 282 U. S. 567 -568. As the Court said in United States v. AmericanSearch
-
to remand the case, rather than deal with the merits of that question in this Court. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. FlowersSearch
-
argued both here and in the District Court, consideration of the statutory claim is appropriate. Bondholders Committee v. CommissionerSearch
-
H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1394 (1953). See also Jaffke v. DunhamSearch
-
of the Administration's initial effort to secure a law forcing each State to pay its full standard of need. See Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
Cf. Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
is infected with a racially discriminatory purpose or effect such as to make it inherently suspect. Cf. McLaughlin v. FloridaSearch
-
and Welfare has determined, as he has here, that the federal and state provisions are consistent, cf. Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
I deem called for by certain implications that might be drawn from the opinion. As I stated in dissent in Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
pass muster if they meet traditional equal protection standards. See also my dissenting opinion in Katzenbach v. MorganSearch
-
maximum grant. In King v. SmithSearch
-
it is one of means. Thus, the United States Government, in its Memorandum as Amicus Curiae in Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
dependent children. Indeed, that was our assessment of the congressional design embodied in the AFDC program in King v. SmithSearch
-
area of the law, it is that the failure of HEW to cut off funds from a state program has no meaning at all. See Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
it was in the context of disapproving all maximums, and ameliorating the harshness of their effects. See also Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
slender threads of legislative comment simply cannot be woven into a conclusion of legislative sanction. Cf. Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
Richards v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial