MARY K. TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR LENA MARIE TURNER AND TAMMY SUE TURNER, AND BARBARA MACK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR PHILLIP PRICE, RENEE PRICE AND DONIELE TROUP, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEES,
v.
JAMES F. WALSH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF THE MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, AND PHYLLIS RESER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF THE MISSOURI DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's grant of declaratory and injunctive relief regarding AFDC benefit computation notices.
Defendants sent computerized notices to welfare recipients about changes in AFDC benefits. Plaintiffs, representing a class of recipients, sued, alleg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
[*457] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a district court’s order and judgment granting plaintiffs’ declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants were required to implement a new state law relating to the method by which AFDC benefits were computed. Defendants sent computerized notices to approximately 44,-774 recipients whose benefits would be adversely affected by the changes. Plaintiffs, representing a class of welfare recipients, brought suit alleging that the notices failed to comply with applicable federal regulations. The district court found that the notices did not properly inform recipients of the circumstances under which aid would be continued pending a hearing and ordered defendants to issue new notices and to comply with proper hearing procedures. Defendants appealed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the briefs and arguments of counsel. We affirm on the basis of Judge Hunter’s well-reasoned opinion reported at 435 F.Supp. 707 (W.D.Mo.1977).
We remand for consideration of plaintiffs’ pending motion in the district court for attorneys’ fees in connection with the proceedings below.
Appellees’ counsel are awarded $750 for their services on this appeal. Finney v. Hutto, 548 F. 2d 740 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. granted, 434 U.S. 901, 98 S.Ct. 295, 54 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buckhanon v. Percy, 708 F.2d 1209 (7th Cir. 1983)
-
LeBEAU v. Spirito, 703 F.2d 639 (1st Cir. 1983)
-
CHU Drua CHA v. Noot, 696 F.2d 594 (8th Cir. 1982)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Finney v. Hutto, 548 F.2d 740 (8th Cir. 1977)
- Quern v. Mandley, 434 U.S. 901 (U.S. 1977)
- Hutto v. Finney, 434 U.S. 901 (U.S. 1977)