Swoap v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SULLIVAN, J.
We are again called upon to determine whether an adult
child of a recipient of aid to the aged under the Old Age Security Law (Welf. & Inst. Code, div. 9, pt, 3, ch. 3, § 12000 et seq.)1 may constitutionally be required to reimburse the state. We addressed ourselves to this question in County of San Mateo v. Boss (1971) 3 Cal.3d 962 [92 Cal.Rptr. 294, 479 P.2d 654]. We there held that under the particular facts of that case, the adult son of that recipient could not constitutionally be compelled to make reimbursement according to the relatives’ responsibility statutes. (§§…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Bullock v. CarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hirabayashi v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Oyama v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- In Re Ricky H.California Supreme Court · 1970
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Hospital Services, Inc. v. BrooksNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
- Steed v. Imperial AirlinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- In Re Jerald C.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Americana Healthcare Center v. RandallSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
- City and County of San Francisco v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.