Legal Opinion
Helm v. Welfare Commissioner
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided July 16, 1975No. FILE No. 15PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSponzo, J.
The principal issue presented by this appeal is whether the defendant welfare commissioner acted arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of his discretion in denying the application of the plaintiff wherein she sought reimbursement for transportation expenses incurred by her individually and on behalf of her minor children in connection with visits to medical and dental offices.
The undisputed facts of this case reveal that the plaintiff and her four children are recipients of benefits under the aid for dependent children program. The plaintiff, who suffers from many ailments, was required to make…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- King v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Caldor, Inc. v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Doe v. MaherDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1976
- Caldor, Inc. v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Clutz v. Farmington Plan. Zon. Comm., No. Cv 91 0398566s (Sep. 9, 1992)Connecticut Superior Court · 1992
- Doe v. MaherDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.