Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Hutchins v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth.
No. C1-79-131 (S.D. Ohio June 29, 1984) ; Clearinghouse Number: 35010
Description
The Ninth Circuit held that defendant employee of defendant district attorney’s office acted under color of law when she accessed a confidential data base of those eligible for certain public benefits to find her husband’s ex-wife at a battered women’s sh
Abstract
The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, held that
recipient of public assistance need not submit documentary evidence
to support her assertion that she failed to meet a work requirement
for lack of available child care. The court annulled an
administrative law judge’s decision that New York City Human
Resources Administration properly reduced petitioner’s public
benefits because she did not produce a letter from the child care
provider to support her claim of good cause for missing a work
assignment. The court ruled that the burden at a fair hearing
rested upon agency to establish that petitioner’s failure to
comply was willful. Petitioner had testified that, three days
before her work assignment began, her day care provider withdrew
its commitment to admit her children because city agency had not
confirmed payment. Respondent offered no evidence refuting
petitioner’s testimony. The court found that, absent any
evidence that petitioner willfully refused to participate in the
job program, the reduction of her benefits was arbitrary and
capricious. The court directed respondent to restore all of
petitioner’s lost public assistance and food stamps.
