Citation network
Mathews Vs. Lucas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 29, 1976
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. 495 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
U.S. 495 (1976) Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
with a design to qualify entitlement to benefits upon a child's dependency at the time of the parent's death. Gomez v. PerezSearch
-
Weber v. AetnaSearch
-
Page 427 U. S. 502 A motion for summary judgment, filed by the appellees, relied on Jimenez v. WeinbergerSearch
-
this is not a legitimate governmental interest, and thus cannot support the challenged classification. Gomez v. PerezSearch
-
We noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument with Norton v. MathewsSearch
-
the discrimination impermissible on less demanding standards than those advocated here. New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. CahillSearch
-
Richardson v. DavisSearch
-
Richardson v. GriffinSearch
-
and Glona v. AmericanSearch
-
severity or pervasiveness of the historic legal and political discrimination against women and Negroes. See Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
-
U. S. 684 -686 (1973) (plurality opinion). We therefore adhere to our earlier view, see Labine v. VincentSearch
-
San Antonio School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
U. S. 175 -176. Page 427 U. S. 507 IV Relying on Weber, the Court, in Gomez v. PerezSearch
-
right to needed support lies against the Government, rather than a natural father. See New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. CahillSearch
-
in providing only for those children for whom the loss of the parent is an immediate source of the need. Cf. Geduldig v. AielloSearch
-
does not justify the statute's discriminations, appellees argue, those classifications must fall under Gomez v. PerezSearch
-
equivalence does not exceed the bounds of substantiality tolerated by the applicable level of scrutiny. See Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
in administrative expense avoided. Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
-
U. S. 128 , 407 U. S. 133 (1972), quoting Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
ignoring the relative amounts devoted to administrative rather than welfare uses. Cf. Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
S. 784 . Finally, while the scrutiny by which their showing is to be judged is not a toothless one, e.g., Jimenez v. WeinbergerSearch
-
the burden remains upon the appellees to demonstrate the insubstantiality of that relation. See Lindsley v. NaturalSearch
-
United States v. GaineySearch
-
U. S. 511 Court has invalidated legislative discriminations among children on the basis of legitimacy. See Gomez v. PerezSearch
-
basis of illegitimacy, and regardless of any demonstration of dependency or other legitimate factor. See also Griffin v. RichardsonSearch
-
Davis v. RichardsonSearch
-
F.Supp. 588 (Conn.), summarily aff'd, 409 U.S. 1069 (1972). In Weber v. AetnaSearch
-
but also only if the dependent child was legitimate. 406 U.S. at 406 U. S. 173 -174, and n. 12. Jimenez v. WeinbergerSearch
-
Id. at 417 U. S. 637 . See also Weinberger v. WiesenfeldSearch
-
Labine v. VincentSearch
-
for survivorship benefits by showing contribution to support, or cohabitation, at the time of death. Cf. Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
U. S. 441 , 412 U. S. 452 -453, n. 9 (1973), distinguishing Starns v. MalkersonSearch
-
insured is eligible for benefits upon some showing Page 427 U. S. 513 of dependency. In Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
and Negroes. See Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial