Citation network
Blum Vs. Bacon
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 14, 1982
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. 132 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Blum v. BaconSearch
-
U.S. 132 (1982) Blum v. BaconSearch
-
U. S. 137 -146. (a) Reliance on the SSA to find the New York provisions invalid is not foreclosed by Quern v. MandleySearch
-
and were thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause. Bacon v. ToiaSearch
-
F.Supp. 1371 (1977). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Bacon v. ToiaSearch
-
F.2d 1044 (1978). Shortly thereafter, this Court decided Quern v. MandleySearch
-
invalidated the no-cash provision as a violation of equal protection, but upheld the loss-or-theft provision. Bacon v. ToiaSearch
-
of Appeals concluded, however, that both the no-cash and loss-or-theft provisions violate equal protection. Bacon v. ToiaSearch
-
address the statutory argument in order to avoid unnecessary resolution of the constitutional issue. See Califano v. YamasakiSearch
-
of this case, we first address appellant's claim that reliance on the Act is foreclosed by our decision in Quern v. MandleySearch
-
of an agency charged with the administration of a statute is entitled to substantial deference. See, e.g., FEC v. DemocraticSearch
-
theft rules conflict with a valid federal regulation, they are invalid under the Supremacy Clause. See Chrysler Corp. v. BrownSearch
-
Although DSS replaced the voucher, Selders was unable to make use of the replacement, because she had no cash. Bacon v. ToiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
because the District Court determined that the provision does not preclude EA in the event of a true emergency. Bacon v. ToiaSearch
-
rely upon any matter appearing in the record in support of the judgment below. See Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. LudwigSearch
-
Dayton Board of Education v. BrinkmanSearch
-
For a general discussion of the EA and AFDC programs, see Quern v. MandleySearch
-
Thorpe v. HousingSearch
-
In an amicus brief filed at the invitation of the court in Ingerson v. PrattSearch
-
will not be affected by the amount of assistance received. Documentation of the U.S. Dept. of HEW relating to Ingerson v. PrattSearch
-
regulation. Ingerson v. PrattSearch
-
We have no reason to question the conclusion of the lower courts, given their familiarity with state law. See Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Blum v. BaconSearch
-
the Supremacy Clause. Bacon v. ToiaSearch
-
Bacon v. ToiaSearch
-
See Califano v. YamasakiSearch
-
FEC v. DemocraticSearch
-
the Supremacy Clause. See Chrysler Corp. v. BrownSearch
-
See Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. LudwigSearch
-
Ingerson v. PrattSearch
-
See Bishop v. WoodSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial