Harlow v. Carleson
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHARDSON, J.
This case and its companion, Le Blanc v. Swoap, post, page 744 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 304,548 P.2d 704], raise the issue of the proper *734standard of judicial review to be used in an administrative mandamus action brought to annul a decision terminating welfare assistance. We conclude that within the reasoning of Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28 [112 Cal.Rptr. 805, 520 P.2d 29], and Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130 [93 Cal.Rptr. 234, 481 P.2d 242], the right to continued welfare benefits, for purposes of judicial review of welfare…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELESCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Moran v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Hughes v. Board of Architectural ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Anton v. San Antonio Community HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Frink v. ProdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Berlinghieri v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.