Turner v. Walsh, 574 F.2d 456 (8th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Turner v. Walsh, 574 F.2d 456 (8th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events across 11 distinct courts.
Cited for
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mary K. Turner, Individually and as Next Friend for Lena Marie Turner and Tammy Sue Turner, and Barbara MacK Individually and as Next Friend for Phillip Price, Renee Price and Doniele Troup, and All Others Similarly Situated
v.
James F. Walsh, Individually and as Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, and Phyllis Reser, Individually and as Director of the Missouri Division of Family Services
77-1751.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
May 3, 1978.
Published opinion
574 F.2d 456
1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11381
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

574 F.2d 456

Mary K. TURNER, Individually and as next friend for Lena
Marie Turner and Tammy Sue Turner, and Barbara Mack,
Individually and as next friend for Phillip Price, Renee
Price and Doniele Troup, and all others similarly situated, Appellees,
v.
James F. WALSH, Individually and as Director of the Missouri
Department of Social Services, and Phyllis Reser,
Individually and as Director of the
Missouri Division of Family
Services, Appellants.

No. 77-1751.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 1978.
Decided May 3, 1978.

D. B. Kammerer, Legal Counsel, State of Missouri, Dept. of Social Services, Jefferson City, Mo., for appellants.

Shirley Allen, The Legal Aid Society of the City & County of St. Louis (argued), and Stuart R. Berkowitz, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellees.

Before ROSS and HENLEY, Circuit Judges, and LARSON, Senior District Judge.[*]

PER CURIAM.

[*~456–457]1

This is an appeal from a district court's order and judgment granting plaintiffs' declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants were required to implement a new state law relating to the method by which AFDC benefits were computed. Defendants sent computerized notices to approximately 44,774 recipients whose benefits would be adversely affected by the changes. Plaintiffs, representing a class of welfare recipients, brought suit alleging that the notices failed to comply with applicable federal regulations. The district court found that the notices did not properly inform recipients of the circumstances under which aid would be continued pending a hearing and ordered defendants to issue new notices and to comply with proper hearing procedures. Defendants appealed.

2

We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the briefs and arguments of counsel. We affirm on the basis of Judge Hunter's well-reasoned opinion reported at 435 F.Supp. 707 (W.D.Mo.1977).

3

We remand for consideration of plaintiffs' pending motion in the district court for attorneys' fees in connection with the proceedings below.

4

Appellees' counsel are awarded $750 for their services on this appeal. Finney v. Hutto, 548 F.2d 740 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. granted, 434 U.S. 901, 98 S.Ct. 295, 54 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977).

*

Earl R. Larson, Senior District Judge, District of Minnesota, sitting by designation