Supreme Court of the United States, 1970

Daniel v. Goliday

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 25, 1970 · Black, Stewart

398 U.S. 73; 90 S. Ct. 1722; 26 L. Ed. 2d 57; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 41 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Merriweather v. Burson (5th Cir. 1971)
Merriweather v. Burson (5th Cir. 1971)
Guerrero v. Schmidt (District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 1973)
Rochester v. Ingram (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1972)
Hunt v. Edmunds (D. Minn. 1971)
Barrett v. Roberts (5th Cir. 1977)
Enrique Velazco v. Steven A. Minter, Etc. (1st Cir. 1973)
Gonzales v. Vowell (District Court, N.D. Texas 1973)
Woodson v. Department of Social Services (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
Barrett v. Roberts (5th Cir. 1977)
Baker-Chaput v. Cammett (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1976)
Baker-Chaput v. Cammett (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1976)
Mary Angel Gonzales, a Widow, Etc. v. Raymond G. Vowell, Commissioner of Public Welfare for the State of Texas (5th Cir. 1974)
Smith v. Vowell (District Court, W.D. Texas 1974)
Jamieson v. Weinberger (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1974)
Lyons v. Weinberger (District Court, S.D. New York 1974)
Elliott v. Weinberger (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1974)
Almenares v. Wyman (2d Cir. 1972)
Serritella v. Engelman (District Court, D. New Jersey 1972)
Zobriscky v. Los Angeles County (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)
Blair v. Pitchess (Cal. 1971)
Copeland v. Parham (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1971)
Almenares v. Wyman (2d Cir. 1971)
Downs v. Jacobs (Del. 1970)
Banner v. Smolenski (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court below has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to provide a recipient of public welfare benefits with notice and a hearing prior to “termination, suspension, or reduction” of benefits. This Court's subsequent decisions in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, and Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U. S. 280, decided March 23, 1970, dealt only with termination and suspension, not reduction, of benefits. We think that the bearing of those decisions on the treatment of benefit reductions should be determined in the first instance by the District Court on a record developed by the parties with specific attention to that issue. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.