Citation network
Blessing Vs. Freestone
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 21, 1997
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. 329 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Blessing, Director, Arizona Department of Economic Security V. FreestoneSearch
-
redress must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely of federal law. Golden State Transit Corp. v. LosSearch
-
and (3) whether the statute imposes a binding obligation on the State. See, e. g., Wilder v. VirginiaSearch
-
remedy, Smith v. RobinsonSearch
-
enforcement, Livadas v. BradshawSearch
-
such rights because the plaintiffs articulated, and lower courts evaluated, welldefined claims. See, e. g., Wright v. RoanokeSearch
-
carefully tailored scheme. That scheme is far more limited than those at issue in Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. NationalSearch
-
Sea Clammers Assn., 453 U. S. 1, and Smith v. RobinsonSearch
-
ruled in favor of the Director. Relying primarily on a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Carelli v. HowserSearch
-
and whether the statute imposes a binding obligation on the State. Id., at 1147 (quoting Wilder v. VirginiaSearch
-
liability in Wright v. RoanokeSearch
-
We have held that this provision safeguards certain rights conferred by federal statutes. Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law. Golden State Transit Corp. v. LosSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that 3 Compare Wehunt v. LedbetterSearch
-
cert. denied, 494 U. S. 1027 (1990), with Carelli v. HowserSearch
-
remedy), with Al biston v. MaineSearch
-
have an enforceable right to prompt disbursement of their child support payments under Title IV-D), and with Howe v. EllenbeckerSearch
-
cause of action against state officials to enforce Title IV-D. Next, she asks us to overrule Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
see also Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Smith v. RobinsonSearch
-
as required by a particular provision in the Medicaid statute. 496 U. S., at 511-512. And in Suter v. ArtistSearch
-
Wilder, 496 U. S., at 521 (quoting Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. NationalSearch
-
in Sea Clammers, supra, and Smith v. RobinsonSearch
-
with whom JUSTICE KENNEDY joins, concurring. I agree with the Court that under the test set forth in Wright v. RoanokeSearch
-
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 479 U. S. 418 , 423 (1987), and Wilder v. VirginiaSearch
-
and spending agreement-such as Title IV -D-to bring suit. As we explained in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Syllabus Blessing, Director, Arizona Department of Economic Security V. FreestoneSearch
-
Golden State Transit Corp. v. LosSearch
-
Wilder v. VirginiaSearch
-
Wright v. RoanokeSearch
-
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. NationalSearch
-
and Smith v. RobinsonSearch
-
the Sixth Circuit, Carelli v. HowserSearch
-
Compare Wehunt v. LedbetterSearch
-
Carelli v. HowserSearch
-
Howe v. EllenbeckerSearch
-
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Suter v. ArtistSearch
-
and Wilder v. VirginiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial