Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
California Homeless & Housing Coalition v. Anderson
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 9, 1995No. A062250Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
*465WHITE, J.,*
Concurring and Dissenting. — I concur in the majority opinion to the extent it holds that mandamus relief was available to petitioners California Housing and Homeless Coalition. However, I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that California (State) has complied with 42 United States Code section 602(h) (sometimes referred to herein as section 602(h)). I would affirm the judgment of the lower court on this point.
At the heart of this case lies a disagreement concerning the kind of reevaluation section 602(h) requires. Petitioners contend the State must…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rosado v. WymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Quern v. MandleySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- In Re Petitions for Rulemaking, N.J.A.C. 10:82-1.2 & 10:85-4.1Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
- Everett v. SchrammCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Independent Nursing Home v. SimmonsDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1990