42 U.S.C. § 1201
Authorization of appropriations
For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to needy individuals who are blind, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this subchapter. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, State plans for aid to the blind.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 168
cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1937–2026 · leading case: Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221 (1981).
Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221 (1981). “[1] The SSI program, Title XVI of the Social Security Act, largely replaced the prior system of federal grants to state-run assistance programs for the aged, blind, and disabled contained in Titles I, X, XIV, and XVI of the Act, that is, Old Age Assistance, 49 Stat.”
Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397 (1970). “[10] The four categorical assistance programs are the Old Age Assistance (OAA), 42 U.”
Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535 (1972). “; AB, 42 U. S. C. § 1201 et seq.; APTD, 42 U. S.”
People v. Barrett, 281 P.3d 753 (Cal. 2012). “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act—“the most significant federal protection for individuals with disabilities” until the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( 42 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.) (Rothstein & Irzyk, Disabilities and the Law, supra, at p.”
Jeffrey Neely v. PSEG Texas Ltd. P'ship, e, 735 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2013). “Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in either jury interrogatory, there is no need to consider the two-part analysis to determine whether the error requires reversal. No valid argument has been presented that the interrogatories did not adequately present the…”
Darces v. Woods, 679 P.2d 458 (Cal. 1984). “); Aid to the Blind (AB) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.); and Aid For the Permanently and Totally Disabled (APTD) ( 42 U.”
Stacy L. Deane v. Pocono Med. Ctr., 142 F.3d 138 (3rd Cir. 1998). “Deane from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to her former employer, Pocono Medical Center (“PMC”), on De-ane’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA” or the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq. In enacting the ADA, Congress intended that the…”
Colleen v. Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp. Schering Corp. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 145 F.3d 601 (3rd Cir. 1998). “§ 623 (f) ("is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of" the ADEA) (emphasis added) with 42 U.S.C. § 1201 (c) {“shall not be used as a subterfuge to evade the purposes of” the ADA) (emphasis added).”
Califano v. Torres, 435 U.S. 1 (1978). “645 , 42 U. S. C. § 1201 et seq.; Aid to the Disabled, 64 Stat.”
Atkins v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 154 (1986). “); Aid to the Blind, 42 U. S. C. § 1201 et seq. (1970 ed.); and Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled, 42 U.”
Vassenelli v. City of Syracuse, 138 A.D.3d 1471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “While the federal appeal was pending, plaintiff commenced the instant action asserting causes of action for, inter alia, promissory estoppel, breach of contract, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation and discrimination under the…”
Lewis v. New Mexico Dep't of Health, 261 F.3d 970 (10th Cir. 2001). “Alleging violations under both the Medicaid Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1201 et. seq., as well *975 as due process violations actionable under 42 U.”
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.