LaMADRID v. HEGSTROM

Nos. 85-3704, 85-3719, 85-4420, 85-4426 and 85-3975.

830 F.2d 1524 (1987)

Eufemia LaMADRID, for herself and as next friend for her minor son, Joey LaMadrid; Debbie Viskov, Jeremy Gerber, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Leo HEGSTROM, individually and in his official capacity as Director, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon; and Keith Putnam, individually and in his official capacity as Administrator, Adult and Family Services Division of the State of Oregon, Defendants, and Margaret Heckler, individually and in her official capacity as Secretary of United States Department of Health & Human Services, Defendants-Appellants. Shirley STREAHL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Leo HEGSTROM, et al., Defendant, and Margaret Heckler, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellant. Carole C. WHITE, Mary Halverson, and Irma Diaz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Karen RAHM, Secretary, Department of Social & Health Services, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submission Deferred November 6, 1986.

Resubmitted June 12, 1987.

Decided October 26, 1987.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard D. Wasserman, Portland, Or., James R. Watt, Olympia, Wash., P.K. Abraham and Evelyn McChesney, Seattle, Wash., for defendants-appellants.

Lorey H. Freeman and Ira R. Zarov, Portland, Or., Norman R. McNulty, Jr. and Kenneth Isserlis, Spokane, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Lorenn Walker, Honolulu, Hawaii, for amicus.

Before ANDERSON, HUG and CANBY, Circuit Judges.


J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

This consolidated appeal involves the interpretation of what has been phrased the "lump sum rule" when determining the eligibility of families seeking Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. In all three cases, the district courts treated the monies received by appellees as resources rather than income for purposes of determining eligibility for AFDC benefits. On appeal, appellants argue that the lump sum rule requires...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases