Citation network
OrtweIn Vs. Schwab
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 1973
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. 656 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Ortwein v. SchwabSearch
-
U.S. 656 (1973) Ortwein v. SchwabSearch
-
in welfare payments sought by them has less constitutional significance than the interest of appellants in Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
a procedure, not conditioned on payment of any fee, through which appellants were able to seek redress. United States v. KrasSearch
-
otherwise. 262 Ore. 375, 498 P.2d 757 (1972). We affirm that decision for reasons we found persuasive in United States v. KrasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
P.2d 757 (1972). From this denial the present appeal is taken. I Relying on this Court's opinion in Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
order in Frederick v. SchwartzSearch
-
to appeal an adverse welfare decision, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In United States v. KrasSearch
-
Kras, has far less constitutional significance than the interest of the Boddie appellants. Compare Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
U. S. 471 (1970), and Richardson v. BelcherSearch
-
U. S. 78 (1971), with Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 479 (1965), and Eisenstadt v. BairdSearch
-
that procedural due process requires that a welfare recipient be given a pre-termination evidentiary hearing. Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
recognized that, even in criminal cases, due process does not require a State to provide an appellate system. McKane v. DurstonSearch
-
Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
U. S. 485 -486. No suspect classification, such as race, nationality, or alienage, is present. See Graham v. RichardsonSearch
-
U. S. 365 , 403 U. S. 372 (1971). The applicable standard is that of rational justification. United States v. KrasSearch
-
the State's goal. The requirement of rationality is met. Page 410 U. S. 661 III Relying on Lindsey v. NormetSearch
-
is capricious or arbitrary. Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissents, believing that the doctrine of Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U. S. 371 (1971), requires reversal of this judgment. See United States v. KrasSearch
-
Huffman v. BoersenSearch
-
These evidentiary hearings, of course, must meet the minimal requirements of due process. Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
United States v. KrasSearch
-
interests, at least with respect to questions of law, seems to me to be the essence of due process. Cf. Lindsey v. NormetSearch
-
that token access cannot satisfy the requirements Page 410 U. S. 663 of due process. See, e.g., Mullane v. CentralSearch
-
with federal provisions. Moreover, each contends that the administrative hearing was deficient under Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
required to justify a suspect classification or discrimination which infringes on fundamental rights. See Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
II The majority affirms the judgment below without the benefit of briefs or argument, relying on United States v. KrasSearch
-
supra. Although I did not join the Court's opinion in Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
with my Brothers DOUGLAS and MARSHALL that this case is distinguishable from our recent decision in United States v. KrasSearch
-
that Kras is controlling. On the merits, I would reverse for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U. S. 371 , 401 U. S. 386 (1971) (concurring in part). See also United States v. KrasSearch
-
Page 410 U. S. 665 MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting. I adhere to my dissenting opinion in United States v. KrasSearch
-
St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 298 U. S. 38 , 298 U. S. 84 (1936) (concurring opinion). Cf. Yakus v. UnitedSearch
-
from appellants without affording them a chance to contest the legality of the taking in a court of law. Cf. Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ortwein v. SchwabSearch
-
Frederick v. SchwartzSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial