48 F.3d 1219 (6th Cir. 1995), 94-3081, Baum v. Espy

Docket Nº:94-3081.
Citation:48 F.3d 1219
Party Name:Robin BAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Emma Detillion; and Sheila Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mike ESPY, Secretary of Department of Agriculture; Arnold R. Tompkins, Director, Ohio Department of Human Resources; and John J. Witkosky, Administrator, P
Case Date:February 28, 1995
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1219

48 F.3d 1219 (6th Cir. 1995)

Robin BAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Emma Detillion; and Sheila Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Mike ESPY, Secretary of Department of Agriculture; Arnold R. Tompkins, Director, Ohio Department of Human Resources; and John J. Witkosky, Administrator, Portage County Department of Human Resources, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-3081.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

February 28, 1995

         Editorial Note:

         This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

        On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; No. 88-00234, David D. Dowd, Jr., J.

        N.D.Ohio, 840 F.Supp. 493.

        DISMISSED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART.

        Before: MILBURN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and MILES, [*] District Judge.

        PER CURIAM.

        Plaintiffs Robin Baum, Emma Detillion, and Sheila Lawson appeal the district court's grant of the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Mike Espy, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture; Arnold R. Tompkins, Director of the Ohio Department of Human Services; and John J. Witkosky, Administrator of the Portage County Department of Human Services. In this action, plaintiffs challenged defendants' inclusion of utility reimbursement payments as income in determining the benefits to which plaintiffs are entitled under the Food Stamp Act.

        On appeal, the issues are (1) whether defendants' inclusion of utility reimbursement payments made to plaintiffs violates the reimbursement exclusion of the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2014(d)(5); (2) whether defendant Espy's inclusion of utility reimbursement payments as income under the Food Stamp Act violates his obligation under 42 U.S.C. § 1441 to exercise his powers consistently with the provisions of the Brooke Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1437; and (3) whether defendants' inclusion of utility reimbursement payments in calculating plaintiffs' food stamp benefits violates plaintiffs' rights under the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. However, also before this court is defendants' motion to dismiss this appeal as moot as a result of a change in government policy regarding the inclusion of utility reimbursement payments in income calculations for allocation of food stamp benefits. Upon examination,...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP