Citation network
Atkins Vs. Parker
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 04, 1985
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. 115 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Atkins v. ParkerSearch
-
U.S. 115 (1985) Atkins v. ParkerSearch
-
Foggs v. BlockSearch
-
Stat. 703-709. In 1971, however, in response to this Court's decision Page 472 U. S. 125 in Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
attributable to the statutory change. Food-stamp benefits, like the welfare benefits at issue in Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
is without merit. All citizens are presumptively charged with knowledge of the law, see, e.g., North Laramie Land Co. v. HoffmanSearch
-
a change in the law with an adequate opportunity to become familiar with their obligations under it. See Texaco, Inc. v. ShortSearch
-
Together with No. 83-6381, Parker et al. v. BlockSearch
-
to food stamps benefits is a property interest subject to the full protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Golderg v. KellySearch
-
a) (1985). Foggs v. BlockSearch
-
Escambia County, Florida v. McMillanSearch
-
Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
Thus, in Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
of Social Security disability benefits. He recognizes, as has been implicit in our prior decisions, e.g., Richardson v. BelcherSearch
-
Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
United States Railroad Retirement Board v. FritzSearch
-
Cf. Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. StateSearch
-
agreed, finding the notices statutorily and 'constitutionally deficient' because they 'failed to inform.' Foggs v. BlockSearch
-
conclusion that the Secretary employed different terms in the same regulation to mean different things. See Crawford v. BurkeSearch
-
history demonstrates that no distinction was intended. The controlling House Report explained that after Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
and must be presumed to have intended to maintain that practice absent some clear indication to the contrary. Haig v. AgeeSearch
-
reduced or terminated to determine whether or not to request a fair hearing. Cf. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSearch
-
S. 126 . This conclusion may generally be correct with regard to enactment of changes in the law, see Texaco, Inc. v. ShortSearch
-
process pretermits any claim that Congress' action constitutes unconstitutional deprivation of property. See Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
errors of the State. Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
U. S. 254 (1970), Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
U. S. 319 (1976), and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. CraftSearch
-
Mullane v. CentralSearch
-
created by different procedures. Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
as well as its timing and other procedural claims. Goss v. LopezSearch
-
Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSearch
-
Id. at 436 U. S. 14 -15, n. 15. See also Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
Order, Foggs v. BlockSearch
-
canon requiring deference to regulatory interpretations made by an agency that administers a statute, e.g., Jewett v. CommissionerSearch
-
U. S. 305 , 455 U. S. 318 (1982), has no application here. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. StateSearch
-
Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSearch
-
Fogg v. BlockSearch
-
Clause constrains state agencies to err on the side of allowing hearings in doubtful or ambiguous cases. Carleson v. Yee-LittSearch
-
U.S. 924 (1973) ( summarily aff'g Yee-Litt v. RichardsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial