Dandridge v. Williams
Significance, Welfare Regulation
Appellant
Edmund P. Dandridge, Jr., et al.
Appellee
Linda Williams et al.
Appellant's Claim
That the Maryland maximum grant regulation was in conflict with the Federal Social Security Act and with equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
George W. Liebmann
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Joseph A. Matera
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Warren E. Burger, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart (writing for the Court), Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall (Harry A. Blackmun had not yet been appointed to the Court)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
6 April 1970
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the regulation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and reversed the lower court's decision.
Related Cases
- Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971).
- San Antonio Independent School District, et al. v. Demetrio P. Rodriguez, et al., 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
- Gurley v. Wohlgemuth, 421 F.Supp. 1337 (1976).
- Joyner v. Dumpson, 533 F.Supp. 233 (1982).
- Daugherty v. Wallace, 621 N.E. 2d 1374 (1993).
Sources
Wolch, Jennifer R. "America's New Urban Policy: Welfare Reform and the Fate of American Cities," Journal of the American Planning Association. Winter 1998.
Further Readings
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
Additional topics
- Duncan v. Louisiana - Decision, Background Amendments And The History Of Trial By Jury, The Allegations Against Gary Duncan
- Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts - Two Cases Of Libel?, Impact
- Dandridge v. Williams - Significance
- Dandridge v. Williams - Welfare Regulation
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972