Legal Opinion

Pich v. Lightbourne

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 13, 2013No. C066397PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.

A new computer system changed the way public welfare benefits are administered. The system automatically terminates or reduces aid if the recipient fails to submit required eligibility reports within certain deadlines unless the caseworker inputs the required information upon the recipient’s ultimate submittal.

Plaintiffs alleged this feature of the computer system results in thousands of benefit recipients incorrectly losing their benefits or not receiving them within the time required by law. They sought a traditional writ of mandate compelling the state agency…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Speegle v. Board of Fire UnderwritersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Christensen v. Lightbourne, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  2. Monterey Coastkeeper v. Monterey Cnty. Water Res. Agency, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  3. Fidelman v. JP Morgan Chase CA2/4California Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Immigrant Legal Resources Center v. City of McFarlandDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
  5. Monterey Coastkeeper v. Monterey County Water Resources AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017

2 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