SWOAP, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS OF CALIFORNIA

v.

GARCIA ET AL.; INDIANA V. SCOTTSDALE MALL; GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. V. BULLOCK, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF TEXAS, ET AL.; BERRY ET AL. V. DOLES, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ROADS AND REVENUES OF PEACH COUNTY, ET AL.; RANDLE ET AL. V. BEAL, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.; ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP. V. WHITE ET AL. WASHINGTON ET AL. V. CONFEDERATED BANDS AND TRIBES OF THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION

Citator

Cited By

• Feminist Women's Health Ctr., Inc. v. Mahmood Mohammad, 586 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …scope of his authority when he made the calls. I would not be surprised to find that as a first step, such informal communications almost always precede a formal communication and official adjudication. In City of Lafayette v. La. Power & Light Co., 434 U.S. 811, 98 S.Ct. 1123, 1138, 55 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978), the Supreme Court said that the Parker exemption does not depend on the ability “to point to a specific, detailed legislative authorization.” Similarly, I do not think it is a requirement of Parker v. Bro…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Beulah Chase v. McMASTERS, 573 F.2d 1011 (8th Cir. 1978)
  …the action is not racial discrimination. See Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Confed. Bands & Tribes, Etc. v. State of Wash., 552 F. 2d 1332, 1334-1335 (9th Cir. 1977), appeal filed, 434 U.S. 811, 98 S.Ct. 48, 54 L.Ed.2d 69 (1977). Because the record demonstrates that New Town’s action was aimed at preserving its fiscal integrity and it was apparently willing to serve Chase if she paid local taxes, its conduct did not violate her right to…