Daniel v. Goliday
| Decision Date | 25 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 1211,1211 |
| Citation | 90 S.Ct. 1722,398 U.S. 73,26 L.Ed.2d 57 |
| Parties | David L. DANIEL v. Clara GOLIDAY et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The court below has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to provide a recipient of public welfare benefits with notice and a hearing prior to 'termination, suspension, or reduction' of benefits. This Court's subsequent decisions in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, and Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U.S. 280, 90 S.Ct. 1026, 25 L.Ed.2d 307, decided March 23, 1970, dealt only with termination and suspension, not reduction, of benefits. We think that the bearing of those decisions on the treatment of benefit reductions should be determined in the first instance by the District Court on a record developed by the parties with specific attention to that issue. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blair v. Pitchess
...a hearing. (See also Goliday v. Robinson (N.D.Ill.1969) 305 F.Supp. 1224, vacated and remanded, sub nom. Daniel v. Goliday (1970) 398 U.S. 73, 90 S.Ct. 1722, 26 L.Ed.2d 57; Java v. California Department of Human Resources Dev. (N.D.Cal.1970) 317 F.Supp. 875, affd. (1971) 402 U.S. 121, 91 S.......
-
Baker-Chaput v. Cammett
...this case — whether the denial of an application for welfare benefits triggers due process considerations. Cf. Daniel v. Goliday, 398 U.S. 73, 90 S.Ct. 1722, 26 L.Ed.2d 57 (1970); Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U.S. 280, 282-84, 90 S.Ct. 1026, 25 L.Ed.2d 307 (1970) (Burger, C. J., It has been h......
-
Smith v. Vowell
...which we also do not reach — as to whether the named plaintiff might be considered a "reducee" or "terminee," Daniel v. Goliday, 398 U.S. 73, 90 S.Ct. 1722, 26 L.Ed.2d 57 (1970), in the denial of benefits so as to take the Constitutional claim out of the ambit of Goldberg, supra, or, contra......
-
Lyons v. Weinberger, 74 Civ. 1258.
...the question whether due process requires similar procedural safeguards in advance of reductions of benefits. Daniel v. Goliday, 398 U.S. 73, 90 S.Ct. 1722, 26 L.Ed.2d 57 (1970); Almenares v. Wyman, 453 F.2d 1075, 1082-1083 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 944, 92 S. Ct. 962, 30 L.Ed.......