Dandridge v. Williams
Significance, Welfare Regulation
Edmund P. Dandridge, Jr., et al.
Linda Williams et al.
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
William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall (Harry A. Blackmun had not yet been appointed to the Court)
Date of Decision
6 April 1970
The Supreme Court held that the regulation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and reversed the lower court's decision.
- 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).
Wolch, Jennifer R. "America's New Urban Policy: Welfare Reform and the Fate of American Cities," Journal of the American Planning Association. Winter 1998.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- 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