Legal Opinion

Lentz v. McMahon

California Supreme Court

Decided August 17, 1989No. S.F. 25123PublishedCited by 52 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LUCAS, C. J.

We consider whether, in an administrative hearing in which the government seeks recoupment from a welfare recipient for over-payments, the recipient may assert equitable estoppel as a defense. We conclude a recipient may do so in appropriate circumstances.

I. Facts and Governing Statutory Law

The State Department of Social Services (DSS) supervises administration by county welfare departments of various public assistance programs, including aid to families with dependent children (AFDC). If a recipient of such public assistance is dissatisfied with a decision by a county…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Schweiker v. HansenSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Supreme Court · 1974
  5. City of Long Beach v. MansellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970

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

3Cited by52 opinions

  1. Worcester Insurance v. Fells Acres Day School, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  2. Lusardi Construction Co. v. AubryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Platt Pacific, Inc. v. AndelsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Robinson v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1997

47 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