SNELL ET AL.

v.

WYMAN, COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1970)
  …needs of impoverished human beings. We recognize the dramatically real factual difference between the cited cases and this one, but we can find no basis for applying a different constitutional standard.17 See Snell v. Wyman, 281 E. Supp. 853, aff’d, 393 U. S. 323. It is a standard that has consistently been applied to state legislation restricting the availability of employment opportunities. Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U. S. 464; Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U. S. 552. See also Flemming v. Ne…
• N.Y. State Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1973)
  …1). But, for reasons that escaped me at the time, see id., at 345 n. 7, the Court did not address the statutory argument. Wyman does not, therefore, express any limitation on the rule in Townsend. Similarly, our summary affirmance in Snell v. Wyman, 393 U. S. 323 (1969), where the District Court did not have before it our opinion in King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309 (1968), is at least offset by the summary affirmances in Carleson v. Taylor, 404 U. S. 980 (1971), Juras v. Meyers, 404 U. S. 803 (1971), and Weaver…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Nat'l Welf. Rights Org. v. Mathews, 533 F.2d 637 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
  …t that time, Congress appears to have acquiesced in the Secretary’s power to set resource limits by allowing the limitations to stand when it reconsidered the Act.9 See generally Snell v. Wyman, 281 F.Supp. 853, 867 (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d per curiam, 393 U.S. 323, 89 S.Ct. 553, 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969). In light of this power to set máximums, we see no reason to believe that Congress meant to prohibit the Secretary from determining the manner in which resources will be valued. The Ninth Circuit has rejected a…