Nelson v. Likins

Eighth Circuit

Nelson v. Likins

510 F.2d 414

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 1975

DocketNo. 74-1900

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 510 F.2d 414 (Nelson v. Likins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nelson v. Likins, 510 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon a careful consideration of the record, the briefs and oral arguments, the Court has concluded that the order of the District Court is based upon a correct interpretation of the law as applied to the pleadings and that an opinion would have no precedential value. For these reasons the order granting plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby affirmed on the basis of Judge Lord’s well reasoned opinion, 389 F.Supp. 1234. See Rule 14 of the Rules of this Court.

This Court recognizes that the action of the appellant in this case was an effort to correct inequities in the administration of the A.F.D.C. program. But in view of the plain language of 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(24) this should be the subject of congressional rather than administrative corrective action.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon a careful consideration of the record, the briefs and oral arguments, the Court has concluded that the order of the District Court is based upon a correct interpretation of the law as applied to the pleadings and that an opinion would have no precedential value. For these reasons the order granting plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby affirmed on the basis of Judge Lord’s well reasoned opinion, 389 F.Supp. 1234. See Rule 14 of the Rules of this Court.

This Court recognizes that the action of the appellant in this case was an effort to correct inequities in the administration of the A.F.D.C. program. But in view of the plain language of 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(24) this should be the subject of congressional rather than administrative corrective action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 F.2d 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-likins-ca8-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack