Doe v. Klein

4 Citing cases

  1. Allen v. Hettleman

    494 F. Supp. 854 (D. Md. 1980)   Cited 3 times
    In Allen v. Hettleman, 494 F. Supp. 854 (D.Md. 1980), the question was presented whether the State of Maryland could include a minor mother and her child in a single AFDC assistance unit with the minor mother's parent and siblings, all of whom lived in the same household. The court ruled that this arrangement was permissible, rejecting both statutory and constitutional challenges.

    Those precise questions have not been decided in the Supreme Court or in the Fourth Circuit. In Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1979), plaintiff had applied for AFDC benefits provided by the State of Idaho. Plaintiff had so done when she was 16, unmarried, pregnant and living at home with her parents. Her parents were seemingly ineligible for AFDC benefits as to their daughter.

  2. Dawson v. Myers

    622 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that 42 C.F.R. § 435.401 has no bearing on the validity of states' financial eligibility requirements

    It is unclear whether jurisdiction was properly invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. See Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979); Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1979). Nevertheless, the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and so the district court did clearly have federal question jurisdiction ( 28 U.S.C. § 1331).

  3. B.G.M. Enterprises v. Harris

    482 F. Supp. 1073 (D. Mont. 1980)   Cited 2 times

    In reviewing a statute subject to the standards set forth in Salfi, "unless a classification is `patently arbitrary' or `utterly lacking in rational justification', there is no due process violation." Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 1979). The Supreme Court since Salfi has reemphasized the distinction between statutes regulating fundamental rights, for which irrebuttable presumptions may be deemed violative of due process, and statutes regulating economic matters, for which statutory irrebuttable presumptions are to be judged under a "rational justification" standard of review.

  4. Tatten Partners v. New Castle County

    642 A.2d 1251 (Del. Super. Ct. 1993)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the Board of Assessment Review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board

    It is undisputed that § 1983 is a remedial statute which provides a civil cause of action for state deprivation of federal statutory or constitutional rights. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979); Estate of Himelstein v. Ft. Wayne, 898 F.2d 573 (7th Cir. 1990); Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1979); Gonzales v. Young, 560 F.2d 160 (3rd Cir. 1977). As a remedial statute, § 1983 is to be broadly construed by the courts.