Daniel v. Goliday

Supreme Court

Daniel v. Goliday

398 U.S. 73, 90 S. Ct. 1722, 26 L. Ed. 2d 57, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 41

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 25, 1970

Docket1211

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 398 U.S. 73 (Daniel v. Goliday) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel v. Goliday, 398 U.S. 73, 90 S. Ct. 1722, 26 L. Ed. 2d 57, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 41 (1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court below has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to provide a recipient of public welfare benefits with notice and a hearing prior to “termination, suspension, or reduction” of benefits. This Court's subsequent decisions in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, and Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U. S. 280, decided March 23, 1970, dealt only with termination and suspension, not reduction, of benefits. We think that the bearing of those decisions on the treatment of benefit reductions should be determined in the first instance by the District Court on a record developed by the parties with specific attention to that issue. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The court below has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to provide a recipient of public welfare benefits with notice and a hearing prior to “termination, suspension, or reduction” of benefits. This Court's subsequent decisions in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, and Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U. S. 280, decided March 23, 1970, dealt only with termination and suspension, not reduction, of benefits. We think that the bearing of those decisions on the treatment of benefit reductions should be determined in the first instance by the District Court on a record developed by the parties with specific attention to that issue. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 U.S. 73, 90 S. Ct. 1722, 26 L. Ed. 2d 57, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-v-goliday-scotus-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack