Legal Opinion

Murrow v. Clifford

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided December 3, 1975No. Civ. A. 114-73PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

COHEN, Senior Judge:

The narrow issue presented for our consideration, on cross motions for summary judgment, is whether New Jersey’s policy of denying AFDC 1 benefits to pregnant women, irrespective of whether there are other dependent children in their care, is constitutionally infirm. As a result of the decision in Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. 575, 95 S.Ct. 1180, 43 L.Ed.2d 469 (1975) discussed infra, plaintiffs have abandoned their claims on behalf of the unborn child itself, and limit this action to the claims of the mothers of unborn children. For the reasons discussed below, we find…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Hagans v. LavineSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Weinberger v. SalfiSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ruth Friedman v. Stephen Berger, Individually and as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
  2. King v. McMahonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  3. Alcala v. BurnsDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1976
  4. Taylor v. HillDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1976
  5. Green Ex Rel. Beckler v. StantonDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1978

1 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