HARRIS

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By

• Brown v. Feaver, 726 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
  …Beame, 550 F. 2d 815 (2nd Cir.1977) (rejecting fourteenth amendment challenge to state’s failure to provide housing services sufficient to keep a family unit together); Ramos v. Montgomery, 313 F.Supp. 1179 (S.D.Cal.1970)(three-judge court), aff'd, 400 U.S. 1003, 91 S.Ct. 572, 27 L.Ed.2d 618 (1971). As the U.S. Supreme Court stated: [T]he intractable economic, social and even philosophical problems presented by public welfare assistance programs are not the business of this Court. The Constitution may impo…
• Ariz. State Dep't OF Pub. Welf. v. Dep't OF Health, 449 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1971)
  …spensing its available funds.” It merely requires Arizona to make the calculations on the [*471] basis of which it allocates its AFDC funds in a particular way. Compare, e. g., Ramos v. Montgomery, S.D.Cal., 1970, 313 F.Supp. 1179, aff’d mem., 1971, 400 U.S. 1003, 91 S.Ct. 572, 27 L.Ed.2d 618. The Secretary’s determination that the method used by Arizona to calculate AFDC income disregard is not in conformity with valid federal requirements must be affirmed. 3. State-level advisory committee for AFDC and C…
• Conn. State Dep't of Pub. Welf. v. Dep't of Health, 448 F.2d 209 (2d Cir. 1971)
  …income disregard provisions were added to the Social Security Act to encourage recipients to obtain employment and work their way off the welfare rolls. See Conner v. Finch, 314 F.Supp. 364, 367 (N.D.Ill.1970), aff’d sub nom., Conner v. Richardson, 400 U.S. 1003, 91 S. Ct. 575, 27 L.Ed.2d 618 (1971). The Secretary’s formula results in greater payments to recipients who work than does Connecticut’s and, therefore, provides recipients with greater incentives for engaging in gainful employment. This is certain…