C.F.R. » Title 45 » CHAPTER II—OFFICE OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE (ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS), ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › PART 205—GENERAL ADMINISTRATION—PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

45 C.F.R. § 205.10

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 278 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Ctr., 447 U.S. 773 (1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Ctr., 447 U.S. 773 (1980). · cites it 8× “" [10] Title 45 CFR § 205.10 (a) (5) (1979) provides, in relevant part, that an "opportunity for a hearing shall be granted to any applicant who requests a hearing because his or her claim for financial assistance .”
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). · cites it 6× “The regulations *693 which require States to make corrective payments retro-actively in the event of a successful fair hearing challenge, 45 CFR § 205.10 (a) (18), merely confirm the obvious statutory intent.”
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). · cites it 2× “See 45 CFR § 205.10 (a) (1975); n. 4, supra. [6] The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, simply noting that the issue had been correctly decided by the District Court in this case, reached the same conclusion in Williams v.”
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). · cites it 4× “Counsel can help delineate the issues, present the factual contentions in an orderly manner, conduct cross-examination, and generally safeguard the *271 interests of the recipient.”
Turner ex rel. Turner v. Walsh, 435 F. Supp. 707 (W.D. Mo. 1977). · cites it 13× “” 45 C.F.R. § 205.10 (a)(4)(iii). 45 C.F.R.”
Ortiz v. Eichler, 616 F. Supp. 1046 (D. Del. 1985). · cites it 9× “246; 45 C.F.R. § 205.10 . Although the language of the regulations for each act differs in many respects, the basic procedural rights afforded to claimants are virtually identical, except that persons charged with intentional violations of the Food Stamp program are afforded…”
Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (1986). · cites it 2× “§ 602 (a)(22); see also 45 CFR § 205.10 (a)(1984). The relief in this case too might therefore be described as related to a continuing federal duty, "part of a plan that operates prospectively to bring about the delayed benefits of a [constitutionally administered program].”
Sockwell v. Maloney, 431 F. Supp. 1006 (D. Conn. 1976). · cites it 12× “, and the regulations thereunder, 45 C.F.R. § 205.10 , 1 which require written notice and a hearing before termination of foster care benefits provided by a state operating under a Title IV-A plan; and 3) defendant Maher has violated Title XX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.”
Feld v. Berger, 424 F. Supp. 1356 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). · cites it 7× “45 C.F.R. § 205.10 (a)(4) (1975). These regulations embody the due process requirements of Goldberg v.”
Robert C. Clifton v. Michael T. Schafer, 969 F.2d 278 (7th Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “45 C.F.R. § 205.10 (a)(6). It is undisputed that Wisconsin’s AFDC plan complies with this requirement.”
Nelson v. Sugarman, 361 F. Supp. 1132 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). · cites it 16× “3 The other allegations in the complaint charge all of the defendants with failing to comply with the regulation of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) which prescribes fair hearing procedures to be *1135 followed by state welfare agencies, 45…”
Becker v. Toia, 439 F. Supp. 324 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). · cites it 6× “Inadequate and Untimely Notice Plaintiffs contend that the manner in which the co-payment provisions of Section 16 were implemented violated both the Due Process Clause and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Social Security Act, 45 C.F.R. § 205.10 (a)(4), in that the…”
Show all 278 citing cases →
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(12)(i): 1 case
Smith v. State, 144 P.3d 331 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(4): 1 case
Becker v. Conn, 518 F. Supp. 740 (E.D. Ky. 1980).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(4)(i): 1 case
Feld v. Berger, 424 F. Supp. 1356 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). “45 C.F.R. § 205.10 (a)(4) (1975). These regulations embody the due process requirements of Goldberg v.”
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(A): 1 case
Ohio State Consum. Educ. Ass'n v. Schweiker, 541 F. Supp. 915 (S.D. Ohio 1982).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a): 10 cases
Acevedo Díaz v. Collazo, 112 P.R. Dec. 256 (1982).
Serritella v. Engelman, 339 F. Supp. 738 (D.N.J. 1972).
Glover v. McMurray, 361 F. Supp. 235 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).
Cnty. of Madera v. Carleson, 32 Cal. App. 3d 764 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973).
Fischer v. Weaver, 55 F.R.D. 454 (N.D. Ill. 1972).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(1): 1 case
J.B-K. v. Sec'y of the Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 3:18-cv-00025 (E.D. Ky. May 28, 2020).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(1)(h): 1 case
Balino v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(1)(ii): 1 case
Balino v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv., 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(13)(i): 1 case
Ramona Areizaga v. Arthur F. Quern, 590 F.2d 226 (7th Cir. 1978).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(13)(vi): 1 case
S. D. c/o Cherri Martinez v. Agency For Health Care Admin., 204 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(16): 4 cases
Cutler v. Perales, 128 F.R.D. 39 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Shackelford v. Soc. Serv. Bd. of North Dakota, 299 N.W.2d 549 (N.D. 1980).
Tappen v. State, Dep't of Health & Welfare, 641 P.2d 994 (Idaho 1982).
State ex rel. Franklin Cnty. Welfare Dep't v. Freeman, 458 N.E.2d 418 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(18): 2 cases
Cutler v. Perales, 128 F.R.D. 39 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Lawrence v. Lavine, 50 A.D.2d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1975).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(3): 2 cases
Smith v. State, 144 P.3d 331 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Quarterman v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 650 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(3)(iii): 1 case
State Bar v. Cramer, 249 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1976).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(4): 4 cases
Jones v. Blinziner, 536 F. Supp. 1181 (N.D. Ind. 1982).
Almeida v. Chang, 434 F. Supp. 1177 (D. Haw. 1977).
Balino v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Balino v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv., 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(4)(A): 1 case
Ward v. Thomas, 895 F. Supp. 401 (D. Conn. 1995).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(4)(i): 1 case
Rosas ex rel. Perez v. McMahon, 700 F. Supp. 467 (N.D. Cal. 1988).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(4)(i)(A): 3 cases
Almeida v. Chang, 434 F. Supp. 1177 (D. Haw. 1977).
Dingle v. Lam, 434 F. Supp. 1173 (D. Haw. 1977).
Grant v. Toia, 89 Misc. 2d 506 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(4)(i)(B): 4 cases
Quarterman v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 650 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Caulk v. Beal, 447 F. Supp. 44 (E.D. Pa. 1977).
Smith v. State, 144 P.3d 331 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Grant v. Toia, 89 Misc. 2d 506 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(5): 4 cases
Concerned Parents of Stepchildren v. Mitchell, 645 P.2d 629 (Utah 1982).
Balino v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Balino v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv., 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Smith v. State, 144 P.3d 331 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(5)(iii): 1 case
Withey v. Perales, 752 F. Supp. 569 (W.D.N.Y. 1990).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(6): 2 cases
Almeida v. Chang, 434 F. Supp. 1177 (D. Haw. 1977).
Concerned Parents of Stepchildren v. Mitchell, 645 P.2d 629 (Utah 1982).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(6)(i): 1 case
Gardner v. Parry, 88 Misc. 2d 154 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1976).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(b): 1 case
Frye v. Lukehard, 364 F. Supp. 1379 (W.D. Va. 1973).
45 C.F.R. § 205.10(b)(3): 2 cases
State of Mich. v. Schweiker, 563 F. Supp. 797 (W.D. Mich. 1983).
Massachusetts ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 73 (Ct. Cl. 1988).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.