Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ishler v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 25, 1986No. Appeal, No. 2657 C.D. 1985Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Barry:

I dissent. The purpose of the Food Stamp Act is to increase healthy, nutritious eating among low-income families. Mrs. Ishler was receiving $349.00 per month from which she paid $200.00 per month for rent and $4.50 per month for garbage pickup and electric. She received $76.00 per month in food stamps after her SUA deductions. We cannot believe that she placed in savings the difference between the amount she received and the amount she would have received had the state *313not erred. Then to what amount would DPW have her already minimal food stamp allowance be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Moser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. Ervin v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Snipas v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Klesh v. Commonwealth, Department of Public WelfareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Swope Unemployment Compensation CaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962

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