Citation network
Shea Vs. Vialpando
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 23, 1974
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. 251 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Shea v. VialpandoSearch
-
U.S. 251 (1974) Shea v. VialpandoSearch
-
King v. SmithSearch
-
which are given broad discretion in determining both the standard of need and the level of benefits. See Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
Court properly did not reach the constitutional issue, and properly did not convene a three-judge court. Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
consideration of expenses in excess of the standard amount. See 475 F.2d at 735. See also Anderson v. GrahamSearch
-
Adams v. ParhamSearch
-
and Campagnuolo v. WhiteSearch
-
These standard allowances have often been the subject of litigation. A number have been held invalid. See Anderson v. GrahamSearch
-
Connecticut State Dept. of Pub. Welfare v. HEWSearch
-
Campagnuolo v. WhiteSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Williford v. LaupheimerSearch
-
County of Alameda v. CarlesonSearch
-
per month). In X v. McCorkleSearch
-
F.Supp. 1109 (N.J.1970) modified on other grounds sub nom. Engelman v. AmosSearch
-
standard work expense allowance. In Conover v. HallSearch
-
that the Department's construction of its own regulations is entitled to great weight. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
only where the relevant statutory language is unclear or susceptible of differing interpretations. See, e.g., Townsend v. SwankSearch
-
The Court's observation in Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
the use of statistical averages. Moreover, the discretion granted the States by Congress in determining need, see King v. SmithSearch
-
congressional purpose, we must also reject petitioners' claims of administrative efficiency or convenience. See Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
allowance is not justified by its undisputed power to set the level of benefits under the AFDC program. See Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
the percentage of need which it has agreed to pay all recipients through its power to determine AFDC funding, see King v. SmithSearch
-
may not do so in a manner that violates a specific requirement of the Act. See Connecticut State Dept. of Pub. Welfare v. HEWSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Shea v. VialpandoSearch
-
See Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
Anderson v. GrahamSearch
-
See Anderson v. GrahamSearch
-
In X v. McCorkleSearch
-
Engelman v. AmosSearch
-
In Conover v. HallSearch
-
See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
See Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
of the Act. See Connecticut State Dept. of Pub. Welfare v. HEWSearch
-
Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
Jefferson v. HackneySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial