Legal Opinion

Doe v. Hursh

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided June 6, 1970No. 4-69-Civ. 403, 4-69-Civ. 409PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

LARSON, District Judge.

Minnesota participates in the Federal government’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was established by the Social Security Act of 1935. In these two actions the plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Minnesota’s so-called “90-day rule” or “three-month rule” applied to deny Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits to otherwise eligible persons until such time as a parent has been continuously absent from home for a period of ninety days.

The two basic requirements for AFDC are that there be children…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rosado v. WymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. King v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1968

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Doe v. RostkerDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1981
  2. Doe v. DeschampsDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1974
  3. Doe v. MertenDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2004
  4. Norton v. RichardsonDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1972
  5. Mothers & Childrens Rights Organization, Inc. v. StantonDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1973

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API