Citation network
Quern Vs. Mandley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 06, 1978
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. 725 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Quern v. MandleySearch
-
U.S. 725 (1978) Quern v. MandleySearch
-
King v. SmithSearch
-
Mandley v. TrainorSearch
-
The Court of Appeals again reversed. Mandley v. TrainorSearch
-
provisions of Title IV of the Social Security Act, simply governs the dispensation of federal funds. See Townsend v. SwankSearch
-
See Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
with administration of the statute is, of course, entitled to substantial deference. New York Dept. of Social Services v. DublinoSearch
-
for their AFDC programs. King v. SmithSearch
-
law is indeed clear. Each State is entirely free to set its own monetary standard of need and level of benefits. King v. SmithSearch
-
not free to narrow the federal standards that define the categories of people eligible for aid. Beginning with King v. SmithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a) of the Act. Carleson v. RemillardSearch
-
U. S. 282 . See also Lewis v. MartinSearch
-
a) that has been held to be mandatory upon the States in King v. SmithSearch
-
and Townsend v. SwankSearch
-
and to set the standard of need. It may reasonably limit the amounts paid out in emergency assistance, Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
Together with No. 76-1416, Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. MandleySearch
-
and 42 U.S.C.1983, since the plaintiffs' constitutional claims were not insubstantial. Mandley v. TrainorSearch
-
a) (1976 ed.), clearly confers jurisdiction over the federal defendants in these cases. Andrus v. CharlestoneSearch
-
they had no intention of doing so might properly have led the District Court to deny injunctive relief, see Hecht Co. v. BowlesSearch
-
hoc observations by a single member of Congress carry little if any weight. See Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. ManhartSearch
-
payments under the program, every State retains the ability to control its total AFDC expenditures. Cf. Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
a) (AFDC-UF). Cf. Batterton v. FrancisSearch
-
contemporaneous interpretation of the statute is entitled to considerable deference. New York Dept. of Social Services v. DublinoSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Quern v. MandleySearch
-
See Townsend v. SwankSearch
-
New York Dept. of Social Services v. DublinoSearch
-
of the Act. Carleson v. RemillardSearch
-
Lewis v. MartinSearch
-
Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. MandleySearch
-
Andrus v. CharlestoneSearch
-
See Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. ManhartSearch
-
Cf. Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
(AFDC-UF). Cf. Batterton v. FrancisSearch
-
Rosado v. WymanSearch
-
Jefferson v. HackneySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial