green
Positive treatment
2.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
The respondent relies on Crosslin v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 422 F.2d 1028 (9th Cir. 1970), remanded 400 U.S. 1004 , 91 S.Ct. 562 , 27 L.Ed.2d 618 *253 (1971).
cited
Cited "see"
Connecticut State Department of Public Welfare v. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Service
See Conner v. Finch, 314 F.Supp. 364, 367 (N.D.Ill.1970), aff’d sub nom., Conner v. Richardson, 400 U.S. 1003 , 91 S. Ct. 575 , 27 L.Ed.2d 618 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tokuta v. James Madison University
See e.g., Crosslin v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 422 F.2d 1028 (9th Cir.1970), vacated, 400 U.S. 1004 , 91 S.Ct. 562 , 27 L.Ed.2d 618 (1971) (holding an agency to be a deferral agency when it has the power to issue cease and desist orders); Hadfield v. Mitre Corp., 562 F.2d 84 (1st Cir.1977) (holding Massachusetts be a deferral state when complainant must exhaust the mediation powers of the agency before filing suit).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Joyner v. Dumpson
See also Ramos v. Montgomery, 313 F.Supp. 1179, 1181 (S.D.Cal.1970), aff’d, 400 U.S. 1003 , 91 S.Ct. 572 , 27 L.Ed.2d 618 (1971).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bertrand v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.
See also, Crosslin et Vir v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel., 400 U.S. 1004 , 91 S.Ct. 562 , 27 L.Ed.2d 618 (1971).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Owens v. Parham
See, e.g., Ramos v. Montgomery, 313 F.Supp. 1179 (S.D.Cal.1970), aff’d 400 U.S. 1003 , 91 S.Ct. 572 , 27 L.Ed.2d 618 (1971); Bryson v. Burson, 308 F.Supp. 1170 (N.D.Ga.1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arizona State Department of Public Welfare v. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Maricopa County Legal Aid Clients v. Arizona State Department of Public Welfare and Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Compare, e. g., Ramos v. Montgomery, S.D.Cal., 1970, 313 F.Supp. 1179 , aff'd mem., 1971, 400 U.S. 1003 , 91 S.Ct. 572 , 27 L.Ed.2d 618 . 64 The Secretary's determination that the method used by Arizona to calculate AFDC income disregard is not in conformity with valid federal requirements must be affirmed. 65 3.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Arizona State Department of Public Welfare v. Department of Health, Education & Welfare
Compare, e. g., Ramos v. Montgomery, S.D.Cal., 1970, 313 F.Supp. 1179 , aff’d mem., 1971, 400 U.S. 1003 , 91 S.Ct. 572 , 27 L.Ed.2d 618 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ramos
v.
Montgomery, Director, Department of Social Welfare of California
v.
Montgomery, Director, Department of Social Welfare of California
No. 5912.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 1971.
400 U.S. 1003
Douglas, Noted, Should.
Cited by 9 opinions | Published
Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. Cal.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.