Citation network
Jefferson Vs. Hackney
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 30, 1972
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. 535 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
U.S. 535 (1972) Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
a)(23). 304 F.Supp. 1332 (ND Tex.1969). Subsequent to that judgment, this Court decided Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
King v. SmithSearch
-
to rely on what they perceive to have been the broad congressional purpose in enacting the provision. In Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
Thus, what little legislative history there is on the point, see Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
U.S. at 397 U. S. 409 -412, tends to undercut appellants' theory. See Lampton v. BoninSearch
-
a State from creating certain exceptions to standards specifically enunciated in the federal Act. See, e.g., Townsend v. SwankSearch
-
permissible way for the State to approach this important goal. This Court emphasized only recently, in Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
Page 406 U. S. 551 In conclusion, we reemphasize what the Court said in Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
For a general review of the statutory scheme, see Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
Appellants' reliance on language from Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
In James v. ValtierraSearch
-
in percentages is rationally related to the purposes of the separate welfare programs. The Court's decision in Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mexican Americans and the Administration of Justice in the Southwest (1970). In Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
in conflict with Rosado, 397 U. S. Williams, 397 U.S. Page 406 U. S. 553 471, and Townsend v. SwankSearch
-
Page 406 U. S. 555 The California Supreme Court, in Villa v. HallSearch
-
Id. at 235-236, 490 P.2d at 1153-1154. Moreover, Townsend v. SwankSearch
-
claimants. The decision to participate or not in the federal program is left to the States. Townsend v. SwankSearch
-
H.R. Rep No. 1300, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 48 (1949). As the Court said in Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
Carter v. CarterSearch
-
Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238 , 298 U. S. 297 . And see Coosaw Mining Co. v. SouthSearch
-
legislation, such a the Social Security Act, is to be interpreted liberally to effectuate its purposes. E.g., Peyton v. RoweSearch
-
To the same effect is our recent decision in Engelman v. AmosSearch
-
U. S. 23 (1971), aff'g sub nom. X v. McCorkleSearch
-
F.Supp. 1109 (NJ 1970). There, relying on Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
however, is to be made in setting the level of benefits, and not by gerrymandering the standard of need. Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
Helvering v. DavisSearch
-
U. S. 619 , 301 U. S. 645 (1937). Mr. Justice Harlan reiterated this point in Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
Consideration of this section must, of course, begin with Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
Memorandum for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
in actual payments in return for the addition of more families to the rolls of AFDC recipients. Accord, Lampton v. BoninSearch
-
Alvarado v. SchmidtSearch
-
the California Supreme Court struck down the State's AFDC scheme for noncompliance with the federal statute. Villa v. HallSearch
-
the State's determination of need. We only recently had occasion to consider the effect of this provision in Engelman v. AmosSearch
-
the ceilings, they no longer were eligible for AFDC aid. The District Court analogized Engelman to Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
of minimizing a State's welfare expenditures. There is clearly support for this view, as the Court noted in Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
which requires that aid be furnished to all eligible persons promptly. For me, this case is no different from King v. SmithSearch
-
U. S. 309 (1968) (striking down substitute father regulation) or Townsend v. SwankSearch
-
Citation omitted.) Lampton v. BoninSearch
-
There is also evidence of a stigma that seemingly attaches to AFDC recipients and no others. This Court noted in King v. SmithSearch
-
standard of review would govern the case as the Court holds. In Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
argument that the standard of review determines, in large measure, whether or not something has been proved. Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
In Rosado v. WymanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial