Legal Opinion
Schroeder v. Hegstrom
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided June 13, 1984No. Civ. 84-289-PAPublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
PANNER, District Judge.
Plaintiffs are welfare families who challenge certain policies and practices by which eligibility and benefits are determined under Oregon’s Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program. Defendants are Leo Hegstrom, Director of the Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon, and Keith Putnam, Administrator of the Adult and Family Services Division of the State of Oregon (AFS). Plaintiffs allege that the challenged policies violate federal statutes and regulations, and the due process guarantee of the fourteenth amendment. They seek declaratory and…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Landon v. PlasenciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Vargas v. TrainorCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1974
- Gloria Banks v. James L. Trainor, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Perdue v. GarganoIndiana Supreme Court · 2012
- Ortiz v. EichlerDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1985
- Ortiz v. EichlerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- Tello v. McMahonDistrict Court, E.D. California · 1988
- Allen v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Public AssistanceAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.