Legal Opinion

Peister v. State, Department of Social Services, Office of Appeals

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided December 31, 1992No. 91CA1833, 92CA0215PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge ROTHENBERG.

Plaintiffs, Rose M. and E.L. Peister, appeal from two trial court judgments affirming the Colorado Department of Social Services’ denial of benefits under the Old Age Pension Program. We affirm.

In 1976, the Peisters decided that using social security numbers would threaten their future spiritual well being because the numbers represent the “mark of the beast” referenced in chapters 13 and 14 of the Book of Revelation as contained in the New Testament. This mark is characterized as a number required for buying and selling, see Leahy v. District of Columbia, 833 F.2d…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security DivisionSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Bowen v. RoySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Dodge v. Department of Social ServicesColorado Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. People v. WellsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1989
  5. Adams v. Colorado Department of Social ServicesColorado Court of Appeals · 1991

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Arippa v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. HIKO Energy, LLC v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. HIKO Energy, LLC v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  4. Peister v. State, Department of Social Services, Office of AppealsColorado Court of Appeals · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API