Legal Opinion

Harlow v. Carleson

California Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1976No. S.F. 23328PublishedCited by 51 opinions

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

  1. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELESCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Moran v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Hughes v. Board of Architectural ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  2. Anton v. San Antonio Community HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Frink v. ProdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Berlinghieri v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980

46 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