Turner v. Walsh
Mary K. Turner, Individually and as Next Friend for Lena Marie Turner and Tammy Sue Turner, and Barbara MacK Individually and as Next Friend for Phillip Price, Renee Price and Doniele Troup, and All Others Similarly Situated v. James F. Walsh, Individually and as Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, and Phyllis Reser, Individually and as Director of the Missouri Division of Family Services
Opinion
574 F.2d 456
Mary K. TURNER, Individually and as next friend for Lena Marie Turner and Tammy Sue Turner, and Barbara Mack, Individually and as next friend for Phillip Price, Renee Price and Doniele Troup, and all others similarly situated, Appellees, v. James F. WALSH, Individually and as Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, and Phyllis Reser, Individually and as Director of the Missouri Division of Family Services, Appellants.
No. 77-1751.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 1978. Decided May 3, 1978.
D. B. Kammerer, Legal Counsel, State of Missouri, Dept. of Social Services, Jefferson City, Mo., for appellants.
Shirley Allen, The Legal Aid Society of the City & County of St. Louis (argued), and Stuart R. Berkowitz, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellees.
Before ROSS and HENLEY, Circuit Judges, and LARSON, Senior District Judge. *
PER CURIAM.
1
This is an appeal from a district court's order and judgment granting plaintiffs' declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants were required to implement a new state law relating to the method by which AFDC benefits were computed. Defendants sent computerized notices to approximately 44,774 recipients whose benefits would be adversely affected by the changes. Plaintiffs, representing a class of welfare recipients, brought suit alleging that the notices failed to comply with applicable federal regulations. The district court found that the notices did not properly inform recipients of the circumstances under which aid would be continued pending a hearing and ordered defendants to issue new notices and to comply with proper hearing procedures. Defendants appealed.
2
We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the briefs and arguments of counsel. We affirm on the basis of Judge Hunter's well-reasoned opinion reported at 435 F.Supp. 707 (W.D.Mo.1977).
3
We remand for consideration of plaintiffs' pending motion in the district court for attorneys' fees in connection with the proceedings below.
4
Appellees' counsel are awarded $750 for their services on this appeal. Finney v. Hutto, 548 F.2d 740 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. granted, 434 U.S. 901 , 98 S.Ct. 295 , 54 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977).
* Earl R. Larson, Senior District Judge, District of Minnesota, sitting by designation
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.