Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Turner v. Walsh

574 F.2d 456

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-05-03
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Turner v. Walsh. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
TURNER v. WALSH,574 F.2d 456(8th Cir. 1978)
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.
Appeal from United States District Court, Western District of Missouri; Elmo B. Hunter, Judge.
Before ROSS and HENLEY, Circuit Judges, and LARSON, Senior District Judge.fn*Page 457
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 at435 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).Page 937
  1. Earl R. Larson, Senior District Judge, District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. ↩