Legal Opinion

Guerrero v. Adult & Family Service Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 22, 1984No. 2-3001-AF4607-4; CA A26100PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

Adult and Family Services Division (AFSD) suspended petitioner’s Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) benefits for eleven weeks in 1981, because she failed to pursue an unemployment compensation claim. At that time, AFSD’s regulations required that ADC recipients pursue unemployment compensation claims as a condition of eligibility.

In 1982, the United States District Court for Oregon held that AFSD could not deny ADC benefits on that ground when a child under age 3 was included in the grant. Bowling v. Hegstrom, No. 81-376 JU (D Or, Jan. 11, 1982). One of petitioner’s children was under age 3.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Quern v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Bradley v. School Bd. of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Derenco, Inc. v. Benj. Franklin Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Joseph v. LoweryOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Kempf v. Carpenters & Joiners Local UnionOregon Supreme Court · 1961

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hagel v. PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITYCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  2. May Trucking Co. v. Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API