state agency requirement in California

5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2022 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Giles v. Horngreen calctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008For example, in Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 239-240 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 735 ], the court determined that a county’s contracting out certain case management work under the CalWORKS program did not violate the single state agency rule. 2008For example, in Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 239-240 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 735 ], the court determined that a county’s contracting out certain case management work under the CalWORKS program did not violate the single state agency rule.	1	1
Quern v. Mandleygreen scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001(See, e.g., Lukhard v. Reed (1987) 481 U.S. 368, 377 [ 107 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 , 95 L.Ed.2d 328 ] [Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)]; Atkins v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 154, 162 [ 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2461 , 91 L.Ed.2d 131 ] [Medicaid]; Connecticut Dept. of Income Main. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 531, fn. 17 [ 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214 , 85 L.Ed.2d 577 ] [Medicaid]; Heckler v. Turner (1985) 470 U.S. 184, 190, fn. 4, 198-199 [ 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1146-1147 , 84 L.Ed.2d 138 ] [AFDC]; Quern v. Mandley (1978) 436 U.S. 725, 737, fn. 12 [ 98 S.Ct. 2068, 2075-2076 , 56 L.Ed.2d 658 ] [AFDC].) In 2001(See, e.g., Lukhard v. Reed (1987) 481 U.S. 368, 377 [ 107 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 , 95 L.Ed.2d 328 ] [Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)]; Atkins v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 154, 162 [ 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2461 , 91 L.Ed.2d 131 ] [Medicaid]; Connecticut Dept. of Income Main. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 531, fn. 17 [ 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214 , 85 L.Ed.2d 577 ] [Medicaid]; Heckler v. Turner (1985) 470 U.S. 184, 190, fn. 4, 198-199 [ 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1146-1147 , 84 L.Ed.2d 138 ] [AFDC]; Quern v. Mandley (1978) 436 U.S. 725, 737, fn. 12 [ 98 S.Ct. 2068, 2075-2076 , 56 L.Ed.2d 658 ] [AFDC].) In	1	1
Schweiker v. Hogangreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001(Schweiker v. Hogan (1982) 457 U.S. 569, 571 [ 102 S.Ct. 2597, 2600 , 73 L.Ed.2d 227 ]; West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (3d Cir. 1989) 885 F.2d 11 , 15, affd. (1991) 499 U.S. 83 [ 111 S.Ct. 1138 , 113 L.Ed.2d 68 ].) A. The Medi-Cal Program and the Single State Agency Requirement The Second Circuit Court of Appeals described the joint federal-state operation of the Medicaid program and the single state agency requirement in Bethphage Lutheran Service, Inc. v. Weicker (2d Cir. 1992) 965 F.2d 1239 , 1240 as follows: “Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., is a cooperative federal-s 2001(Schweiker v. Hogan (1982) 457 U.S. 569, 571 [ 102 S.Ct. 2597, 2600 , 73 L.Ed.2d 227 ]; West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (3d Cir. 1989) 885 F.2d 11 , 15, affd. (1991) 499 U.S. 83 [ 111 S.Ct. 1138 , 113 L.Ed.2d 68 ].) A. The Medi-Cal Program and the Single State Agency Requirement The Second Circuit Court of Appeals described the joint federal-state operation of the Medicaid program and the single state agency requirement in Bethphage Lutheran Service, Inc. v. Weicker (2d Cir. 1992) 965 F.2d 1239 , 1240 as follows: “Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., is a cooperative federal-s	1	1
Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance v. Hecklergreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001(See, e.g., Lukhard v. Reed (1987) 481 U.S. 368, 377 [ 107 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 , 95 L.Ed.2d 328 ] [Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)]; Atkins v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 154, 162 [ 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2461 , 91 L.Ed.2d 131 ] [Medicaid]; Connecticut Dept. of Income Main. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 531, fn. 17 [ 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214 , 85 L.Ed.2d 577 ] [Medicaid]; Heckler v. Turner (1985) 470 U.S. 184, 190, fn. 4, 198-199 [ 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1146-1147 , 84 L.Ed.2d 138 ] [AFDC]; Quern v. Mandley (1978) 436 U.S. 725, 737, fn. 12 [ 98 S.Ct. 2068, 2075-2076 , 56 L.Ed.2d 658 ] [AFDC].) In 2001(See, e.g., Lukhard v. Reed (1987) 481 U.S. 368, 377 [ 107 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 , 95 L.Ed.2d 328 ] [Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)]; Atkins v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 154, 162 [ 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2461 , 91 L.Ed.2d 131 ] [Medicaid]; Connecticut Dept. of Income Main. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 531, fn. 17 [ 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214 , 85 L.Ed.2d 577 ] [Medicaid]; Heckler v. Turner (1985) 470 U.S. 184, 190, fn. 4, 198-199 [ 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1146-1147 , 84 L.Ed.2d 138 ] [AFDC]; Quern v. Mandley (1978) 436 U.S. 725, 737, fn. 12 [ 98 S.Ct. 2068, 2075-2076 , 56 L.Ed.2d 658 ] [AFDC].) In	1	1
Lukhard v. Reedgreen scotus · 1987 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001(See, e.g., Lukhard v. Reed (1987) 481 U.S. 368, 377 [ 107 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 , 95 L.Ed.2d 328 ] [Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)]; Atkins v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 154, 162 [ 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2461 , 91 L.Ed.2d 131 ] [Medicaid]; Connecticut Dept. of Income Main. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 531, fn. 17 [ 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214 , 85 L.Ed.2d 577 ] [Medicaid]; Heckler v. Turner (1985) 470 U.S. 184, 190, fn. 4, 198-199 [ 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1146-1147 , 84 L.Ed.2d 138 ] [AFDC]; Quern v. Mandley (1978) 436 U.S. 725, 737, fn. 12 [ 98 S.Ct. 2068, 2075-2076 , 56 L.Ed.2d 658 ] [AFDC].) In 2001(See, e.g., Lukhard v. Reed (1987) 481 U.S. 368, 377 [ 107 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 , 95 L.Ed.2d 328 ] [Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)]; Atkins v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 154, 162 [ 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2461 , 91 L.Ed.2d 131 ] [Medicaid]; Connecticut Dept. of Income Main. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 531, fn. 17 [ 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214 , 85 L.Ed.2d 577 ] [Medicaid]; Heckler v. Turner (1985) 470 U.S. 184, 190, fn. 4, 198-199 [ 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1146-1147 , 84 L.Ed.2d 138 ] [AFDC]; Quern v. Mandley (1978) 436 U.S. 725, 737, fn. 12 [ 98 S.Ct. 2068, 2075-2076 , 56 L.Ed.2d 658 ] [AFDC].) In	1	1
Atkins v. Riveragreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001(See, e.g., Lukhard v. Reed (1987) 481 U.S. 368, 377 [ 107 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 , 95 L.Ed.2d 328 ] [Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)]; Atkins v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 154, 162 [ 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2461 , 91 L.Ed.2d 131 ] [Medicaid]; Connecticut Dept. of Income Main. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 531, fn. 17 [ 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214 , 85 L.Ed.2d 577 ] [Medicaid]; Heckler v. Turner (1985) 470 U.S. 184, 190, fn. 4, 198-199 [ 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1146-1147 , 84 L.Ed.2d 138 ] [AFDC]; Quern v. Mandley (1978) 436 U.S. 725, 737, fn. 12 [ 98 S.Ct. 2068, 2075-2076 , 56 L.Ed.2d 658 ] [AFDC].) In 2001(See, e.g., Lukhard v. Reed (1987) 481 U.S. 368, 377 [ 107 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 , 95 L.Ed.2d 328 ] [Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)]; Atkins v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 154, 162 [ 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2461 , 91 L.Ed.2d 131 ] [Medicaid]; Connecticut Dept. of Income Main. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 531, fn. 17 [ 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214 , 85 L.Ed.2d 577 ] [Medicaid]; Heckler v. Turner (1985) 470 U.S. 184, 190, fn. 4, 198-199 [ 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1146-1147 , 84 L.Ed.2d 138 ] [AFDC]; Quern v. Mandley (1978) 436 U.S. 725, 737, fn. 12 [ 98 S.Ct. 2068, 2075-2076 , 56 L.Ed.2d 658 ] [AFDC].) In	1	1
Heckler v. Turnergreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001(See, e.g., Lukhard v. Reed (1987) 481 U.S. 368, 377 [ 107 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 , 95 L.Ed.2d 328 ] [Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)]; Atkins v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 154, 162 [ 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2461 , 91 L.Ed.2d 131 ] [Medicaid]; Connecticut Dept. of Income Main. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 531, fn. 17 [ 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214 , 85 L.Ed.2d 577 ] [Medicaid]; Heckler v. Turner (1985) 470 U.S. 184, 190, fn. 4, 198-199 [ 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1146-1147 , 84 L.Ed.2d 138 ] [AFDC]; Quern v. Mandley (1978) 436 U.S. 725, 737, fn. 12 [ 98 S.Ct. 2068, 2075-2076 , 56 L.Ed.2d 658 ] [AFDC].) In 2001(See, e.g., Lukhard v. Reed (1987) 481 U.S. 368, 377 [ 107 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 , 95 L.Ed.2d 328 ] [Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)]; Atkins v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 154, 162 [ 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2461 , 91 L.Ed.2d 131 ] [Medicaid]; Connecticut Dept. of Income Main. v. Heckler (1985) 471 U.S. 524, 531, fn. 17 [ 105 S.Ct. 2210, 2214 , 85 L.Ed.2d 577 ] [Medicaid]; Heckler v. Turner (1985) 470 U.S. 184, 190, fn. 4, 198-199 [ 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1142, 1146-1147 , 84 L.Ed.2d 138 ] [AFDC]; Quern v. Mandley (1978) 436 U.S. 725, 737, fn. 12 [ 98 S.Ct. 2068, 2075-2076 , 56 L.Ed.2d 658 ] [AFDC].) In	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Bates v. Franchise Tax Board green calctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2022The IPA “‘generally imposes limitations on the right of governmental agencies to disclose personal information about an individual. . . .’” (Bates v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 367, 373 .) Civil Code “section 1798.45 provides a private right of action against a state agency for violation of provisions of the IPA . . . .” (Id. at p. 381.) The offending publication on the CAB’s website said, and still says today: “Effective July 23, 2004, [appellant’s] architect license, number C-29196, was revoked, after the [CAB] adopted a Proposed Decision.	1	2022–2022
cluster 299424 green ca9 · 1971 1 sentence 2008W. v. Department of Health, E. & W. (9th Cir. 1971) 449 F.2d 456 , 472, where the court observed that the establishment of a federally mandated advisory committee did not violate the single state agency rule, as “[w]ith or without the advisory committee, the responsibility for making the actual administrative decisions and for implementing them rests in a single set of hands—those of the state agency.” Appellants’ authority, however, serves only to highlight that the vendorization requirement does nothing to usurp the DSS’s role as the single state agency responsible for administering foster c	1	2008–2008
Rolland v. Cellucci green mad · 1999 1 sentence 2001In Rolland v. Cellucci (D.Mass. 1999) 52 F.Supp.2d 231, 243 , the district court held: “The single state agency mandate arose out of Congress’ desire to minimize the improper denial of benefits and to ensure a certain level of services and quality of care.	1	2001–2001
West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey red scotus · 1991 2 sentences 2001(Schweiker v. Hogan (1982) 457 U.S. 569, 571 [ 102 S.Ct. 2597, 2600 , 73 L.Ed.2d 227 ]; West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (3d Cir. 1989) 885 F.2d 11 , 15, affd. (1991) 499 U.S. 83 [ 111 S.Ct. 1138 , 113 L.Ed.2d 68 ].) A. The Medi-Cal Program and the Single State Agency Requirement The Second Circuit Court of Appeals described the joint federal-state operation of the Medicaid program and the single state agency requirement in Bethphage Lutheran Service, Inc. v. Weicker (2d Cir. 1992) 965 F.2d 1239 , 1240 as follows: “Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., is a cooperative federal-s 2001(Schweiker v. Hogan (1982) 457 U.S. 569, 571 [ 102 S.Ct. 2597, 2600 , 73 L.Ed.2d 227 ]; West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (3d Cir. 1989) 885 F.2d 11 , 15, affd. (1991) 499 U.S. 83 [ 111 S.Ct. 1138 , 113 L.Ed.2d 68 ].) A. The Medi-Cal Program and the Single State Agency Requirement The Second Circuit Court of Appeals described the joint federal-state operation of the Medicaid program and the single state agency requirement in Bethphage Lutheran Service, Inc. v. Weicker (2d Cir. 1992) 965 F.2d 1239 , 1240 as follows: “Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., is a cooperative federal-s	1	2001–2001
Sobky v. Smoley green caed · 1994 1 sentence 2001News, at pp. 305, 371; Sobky v. Smoley (E.D.Cal. 1994) 855 F.Supp. 1123, 1145 .) The purposes of the single state agency requirement have been described in various ways.	1	2001–2001
Hillburn v. Maher green ca2 · 1986 1 sentence 2001(Sobky v. Smoley, supra, 855 F.Supp. at pp. 145-1146; Hillburn by Hillburn v. Maher, supra, 795 F.2d at p. 261 .) The language of section 1396a(a)(5) is consistent with that purpose; it requires a Medicaid agency to administer or supervise the administration of the state program (§ 1396a(a)(5)), thereby ensuring consistent operating standards and accountability to the federal government.	1	2001–2001
West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Robert Casey green ca3 · 1989 1 sentence 2001(Schweiker v. Hogan (1982) 457 U.S. 569, 571 [ 102 S.Ct. 2597, 2600 , 73 L.Ed.2d 227 ]; West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (3d Cir. 1989) 885 F.2d 11 , 15, affd. (1991) 499 U.S. 83 [ 111 S.Ct. 1138 , 113 L.Ed.2d 68 ].) A. The Medi-Cal Program and the Single State Agency Requirement The Second Circuit Court of Appeals described the joint federal-state operation of the Medicaid program and the single state agency requirement in Bethphage Lutheran Service, Inc. v. Weicker (2d Cir. 1992) 965 F.2d 1239 , 1240 as follows: “Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., is a cooperative federal-s	1	2001–2001
Bethphage Lutheran Service, Inc. v. Weicker green ca2 · 1992 1 sentence 2001(Schweiker v. Hogan (1982) 457 U.S. 569, 571 [ 102 S.Ct. 2597, 2600 , 73 L.Ed.2d 227 ]; West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (3d Cir. 1989) 885 F.2d 11 , 15, affd. (1991) 499 U.S. 83 [ 111 S.Ct. 1138 , 113 L.Ed.2d 68 ].) A. The Medi-Cal Program and the Single State Agency Requirement The Second Circuit Court of Appeals described the joint federal-state operation of the Medicaid program and the single state agency requirement in Bethphage Lutheran Service, Inc. v. Weicker (2d Cir. 1992) 965 F.2d 1239 , 1240 as follows: “Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., is a cooperative federal-s	1	2001–2001
Goldberg v. Kelly green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 1990Under this requirement: “(A) ‘Timely’ means that the notice is mailed at least 10 days before the date of action, that is, the date upon which the action would become effective; “(B) ‘Adequate’ means a written notice that includes a statement of what action the agency intends to take, the reasons for the intended agency action, the specific regulations supporting such action, explanation of the individual’s right to request an evidentiary hearing (if provided) and a State agency hearing, the circumstances under which assistance is continued if a hearing is requested, [and an explanation of rep 1990Under this requirement: “(A) ‘Timely’ means that the notice is mailed at least 10 days before the date of action, that is, the date upon which the action would become effective; “(B) ‘Adequate’ means a written notice that includes a statement of what action the agency intends to take, the reasons for the intended agency action, the specific regulations supporting such action, explanation of the individual’s right to request an evidentiary hearing (if provided) and a State agency hearing, the circumstances under which assistance is continued if a hearing is requested, [and an explanation of rep	1	1990–1990
In Re Mary S. green calctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1987Nevertheless, in civil proceedings a party has a due process right under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution to cross-examine and confront witnesses. [Citations.]” (In re Mary S. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 414, 419 , fn. omitted [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 726 ].) The same right is afforded by statute in a state agency hearing which involves the revocation of an individual’s license. 1987Nevertheless, in civil proceedings a party has a due process right under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution to cross-examine and confront witnesses. [Citations.]” (In re Mary S. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 414, 419 , fn. omitted [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 726 ].) The same right is afforded by statute in a state agency hearing which involves the revocation of an individual’s license.	1	1987–1987

Where else courts name it

TX 10 (1995–2024) CA 5 (1987–2022) FL 2 (1982–1987) MO 2 (2005–2018) ME 2 (2005–2005) IL 2 (1983–1987) WI 2 (1989–2000) IA 2 (2008–2025) KY 2 (2004–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check