OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Goldberg v. Kelly

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), is case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires a full evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government benefits is deprived of such benefits. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
397 U.S. 254
Goldberg v. Kelly
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Appellees are New York City residents receiving financial aid under the federally assisted Aid to Families with Dependent Children program or under New York State's general Home Relief program who allege that officials administering these programs terminated, or were about to terminate, such aid without prior notice and hearing, thereby denying them due process of law. The District Court held that only a pre-termination evidentiary hearing would satisfy the constitutional command, and rejected the argument of the welfare officials that the combination of the existing post-termination "fair hearing" and informal pre-termination review was sufficient.
Held:
1. Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them, and procedural due process is applicable to their termination. Pp. 261-263.
2. The interest of the eligible recipient in the uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, which provides him with essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care, coupled with the State's interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated, clearly outweighs the State's competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens. Pp. 264-266.
3. A pre-termination evidentiary hearing is necessary to provide the welfare recipient with procedural due process. Pp. 264, 266-271.
(a) Such hearing need not take the form of a judicial or quasi-judicial trial, but the recipient must be provided with timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for termination, and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally before the decisionmaker. Pp. 266-270. [p255]
(b) Counsel need not be furnished at the pre-termination hearing, but the recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so desires. P. 270.
(c) The decisionmaker need not file a full opinion or make formal findings of fact or conclusions of law, but should state the reason for his determination and indicate the evidence he relied on. P. 271.
(d) The decisionmaker must be impartial, and, although prior involvement in some aspects of a case will not necessarily bar a welfare official from acting as decisionmaker, he should not have participated in making the determination under review. P. 271.
294 F.Supp. 893, affirmed.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
366 U.S. 28
Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc.
Argued: March 30, 1961. --- Decided: April 24, 1961
Miss Bessie Margolin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Philip S. Bird, Waterville, Me., for respondents.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gold v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Reed
    Clark
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 985
Gold v. United States
Argued: Jan. 22 and 23, 1957. --- Decided: Jan 28, 1957
Messrs. Harold I. Cammer, New York City, and Joseph Forer, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.
Mr. Joseph A. Lowther, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gold v. United States/Dissent Reed

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Reed Clark
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 985
Gold v. United States
Argued: Jan. 22 and 23, 1957. --- Decided: Jan 28, 1957
Mr. Justice REED, with whom Mr. Justice BURTON and Mr. Justice CLARK join, dissenting.
The Remmer case, dealing with a Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry into a suspected approach to a juror by a defendant, is not in our judgment controlling in this FBI inquiry of people who happened to be Gold jurors concerning a different Communist case. Compare the facts and conclusions of law in Remmer v. United States, 350 U.S. 377, 381, 382, 76 S.Ct. 425, 427, 428, and 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654, with the facts stated in Gold v. United States, 237 F.2d 764, 775.
While a presumption of prejudice arises when a juror in a criminal case receives a private communication bearing even remotely on the trial, the question in each such case is whether that presumption has been rebutted. Cf. Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229, 74 S.Ct. 450, 451, 98 L.Ed. 654, and Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149-150, 13 S.Ct. 50, 53, 36 L.Ed. 917.
We think the record showing of the jurors' reaction to the present inquiry, Record 1586-1673, adequately supports the trial judge's conclusion that no effect upon the jurors adverse to the defendant, because of the accidental intrusion upon their privacy, could reasonably be anticipated.
The juror and the alternate who felt disturbed by the incident were discharged. In our view this made it proper to go ahead, as the court did, with the trial.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gold v. United States/Dissent Clark

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Reed Clark
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 985
Gold v. United States
Argued: Jan. 22 and 23, 1957. --- Decided: Jan 28, 1957
Mr. Justice CLARK, dissenting.
While I too feel that the narrow ground of Remmer's case should not be used to bring about reversal here, I am also disturbed by the refusal of the Court to decide other important questions urged upon us by both parties and ready for disposition. Among these are the applicability of the perjury rule of evidence to the false statement statute, eligibility of government employees to serve as jurors, admissibility of evidence of prior activity in the Communist Party to disprove the sincerity of a resignation therefrom, the use of expert witnesses to prove continuing membership and the correctness of the court's charges as to membership in the Party, etc. It seems to me that proper judicial administration requires this Court to decide these important issues, particularly since they will again arise at the retrial. Furthermore, similar cases involving the same legal points are pending in various districts throughout the country. The refusal of the majority today to pass upon them thus deprives the federal judiciary of this Court's opinion, which renders today's error multifold. It will cause undue hardship in the trial of all of these cases, not only on the Government but on the defendants as well. I therefore dissent.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gold v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Reed Clark
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 985
Gold v. United States
Argued: Jan. 22 and 23, 1957. --- Decided: Jan 28, 1957
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the District Court with directions to grant a new trial because of official intrusion into the privacy of the jury. Remmer v. United States, 350 U.S. 377, 76 S.Ct. 425; 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654. The fact that the intrusion was unintentional does not remove the effect of the intrusion.
Mr. Justice REED, with whom Mr. Justice BURTON and Mr. Justice CLARK join, dissenting.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gilpin v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 10
Gilpin v. United States
Argued: March 21 and 22, 1921. ---
This case was argued and submitted with the Chase Case (No. 242) 256 U.S. 1, 41 Sup. Ct. 417, 65 L. Ed. --. It is a suit by Mary Gilpin, by her next friend, to have adjudged to her a right to an allotment of lands in the Omaha Reservation, she being an Omaha Indian. The right is based on the same treaties and acts of Congress as those passed upon in the Chase Case, and the effect of the Act of May 11, 1912 (37 Stat. 111) repealing the acts-that of 1882 and that of 1893.
The decree of the District Court was adverse to her right and this decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 261 Fed. 841.
For the reasons stated in the opinion in the Chase Case, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gilpin v. Semple

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
GILPIN verʃus SEMPLE.
H
by the court.−It has been determined, upon argument, though often mentioned at the bar, whether we can grant the rule before the return of the writ, or not. But it has been the practice to take the depofition, de bene eʃʃe, under a rule, fubject to the opinion of the Court ; and this upon the authority of the cafe in Sheridan. Notice however, fhould be given to the Defendant, as no appearance, by attorney, can be yet entered.
# Gilpin v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 10
Gilpin v. United States
Argued: March 21 and 22, 1921. ---
Mr. John Lee Webster, of Omaha, Neb. (Mr. Hiram Chase, of Pender, Neb., of counsel), for appellants.
Messrs. Asst. Atty. Gen. Garnett and H. L. Underwood, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. O. C. Anderson, of West Point, Neb. (Mr. Charles J. Kappler, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Omaha Tribe of Indians, by special leave.
Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gilson v. Dayton/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
123 U.S. 59
Gilson v. Dayton
The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of Crow v. Oxford, 119 U.S. 215, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 180. See, also, Post v. Supervisors, 105 U.S. 667, 671. It appears on the face of the bonds sued for that the subscription was made under and by virtue of the act of February 18, 1857, and that the vote of the town was taken at a special town meeting called upon the 'application in writing of fifty legal voters of said town,' which is in accordance with the provisions of that act. The act of March 6, 1867, which the plaintiff now claims is sufficient to support the bonds, requires that the application for the town meeting shall be made by 'twenty voters and tax-payers.' The record does not show that any of those who signed the application for the meeting at which the vote was taken were taxpayers. It thus appears from the bonds themselves not only that they were issued under the act of 1857, but that they were not issued under that of 1867.
Affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gilson v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
234 U.S. 380
Gilson v. United States
Argued: May 6, 1914. --- Decided: June 8, 1914
Messrs. Wade H. Ellis, Ira P. Englehart, Allen S. Davis, and George B. Holden for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Knaebel and Mr. S. W. Williams for appellee.
Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gilmer v. Stone

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 586
Gilmer v. Stone
[Syllabus from pages 586-587 intentionally omitted]
D. T. Littler, for appellant.
James McCartney, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel on pages 587-588 intentionally omitted]
HARLAN, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gilmore v. Gonzales

* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
* 435 F.3d 1125
* JOHN GILMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant
* v.
* ALBERTO R. GONZALES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States;
* ROBERT MUELLER, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
* NORMAN MINETA, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation;
* MICHAEL CHERTOFF, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
* UAL CORPORATION, aka United Airlines;
* SOUTHWEST AIRLINES;
* MARION C. BLAKELY, in her official capacity as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration;
* KIP HAWLEY, in his official capacity as Director of the Transportation Security Administration,
* Defendants-Appellees.
* No. 04-15736
* United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
* Argued and Submitted December 8, 2005
* Filed January 26, 2006
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Before: Stephen S. Trott, Thomas G. Nelson, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Paez
COUNSEL
William M. Simpich, Oakland, California; James P. Harrison, Sacramento, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.
James P. Rathvon, Piper Rudnick LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jane H. Barrett, Piper Rudnick LLP, Los Angeles, California, for the defendant-appellee Southwest Airlines Co.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Kevin V. Ryan, United States Attorney; Douglas N. Letter and Joshua Waldman, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al.
Lee Tien and Kurt Opsahl, San Francisco, California, for amicus Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Marc Rotenberg and Marcia Hofmann, Washington, D.C., for amicus Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Deborah Pierce and Linda Ackerman, San Francisco, California; Rachel Meeropol, New York, New York, for amici The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism.
Reginald T. Shuford and Catherine Y. Kim, New York, New York; Aaron Caplan, Seattle, Washington; Michael E. Kipling, Summit Law Group, Seattle, Washington, for amici American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union for Washington.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Fly v. Heitmeyer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
309 U.S. 146
Fly v. Heitmeyer
Argued: Jan. 11, 1940. --- Decided: Jan 29, 1940
Robert H. Jackson, Sol. Gen., for petitioners.
Clarence C. Dill, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Fly v. Heitmeyer/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
309 U.S. 146
Fly v. Heitmeyer
Argued: Jan. 11, 1940. --- Decided: Jan 29, 1940
On March 25, 1935, Heitmeyer, respondent here, applied for a permit from the Federal Communications Commission under § 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, c. 652, 48 Stat. 1089, 47 U.S.C. § 319, 47 U.S.C.A. § 319 to construct a broadcasting station at Cheyenne, Wyoming. His application and a competing one were heard by an examiner. The Commission, on May 1, 1936, denied respondent's application on the sole ground that he was financially disqualified. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Commission's decision was reversed. Heitmeyer v. Federal Communications Commission, 68 App.D.C. 180, 95 F.2d 91. To proceed in conformity with this opinion, the case was remanded to the Commission.
After Heitmeyer's appeal two other applications for the same facilities were filed with the Commission. Following intermediate litigation, needless here to recount, the Commission directed that respondent's case be reopened in conjunction with the pending rival applications. Before this hearing could be had, respondent obtained from the Court of Appeals a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to restrict consideration of his application to the record originally before it. Because important questions of administrative law were involved, we granted certiorari. 308 U.S. 540, 60 S.Ct. 121, 84 L.Ed. --.
This case is controlled by our decision, Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 60 S.Ct. 437, 84 L.Ed. --, decided this day.
The only relevant difference between the two cases is that there the Commission proposed on remand not only to reconsider respondent's application on oral argument with subsequently filed rival applications, but to reopen the record and take new evidence on the comparative ability of the various applicants to satisfy 'public convenience, interest, or necessity.' But the Commission's duty was to apply the statutory standard in deciding which of the applicants was to receive a permit after it fell into legal error as well as before. If, in the Commission's judgment, new evidence was necessary to discharge its duty, the fact of a previously erroneous denial should not, according to the principles enunciated in the Pottsville case, supra, bar it from access to the necessary evidence for correct judgment.
The judgment is reversed, with directions to dissolve the writ of mandamus and to dismiss respondent's petition.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS concurs in the result.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Flute and Violin and Other Kentucky Tales and Romances

Flute and Violin
AND OTHER KENTUCKY TALES AND ROMANCES.
BY JAMES LANE ALLEN.
ILLUSTRATED
NEW YORK HARPER & BROTHERS M DCCC XCIII.
Copyright, 1891, by Harper & Brothers.
All rights reserved.
To Her
FROM WHOSE FRAIL BODY HE DREW LIFE IN THE BEGINNING, FROM WHOSE STRONG SPIRIT HE WILL DRAW LIFE UNTIL THE CLOSE, THESE TALES, WITH ALL OTHERS HAPLY HERE- AFTER TO BE WRITTEN, ARE DEDI- CATED AS A PERISHABLE MONU-
MENT OF INEFFABLE REMEMBRANCE
PREFACE.
The opening tale of this collection is taken from Harper's Monthly; the others, from the Century Magazine. By leave of these periodicals they are now published, and of the kindness thus shown the author makes grateful acknowledgment.
While the tales and sketches have been appearing, the authorship of them has now and then been charged to Mr. James Lane Allen, of Chicago, Illinois—pardonably to his discomfiture.
A sense of fitness forbade that the author should send along with each, as it came out, a claim that it was not another's; but he now gladly asks that the responsibility of all his work be placed where it solely belongs.
CONTENTS.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1925, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 98 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Giordenello v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark
United States Supreme Court
357 U.S. 480
Giordenello v. United States
Argued: May 21, 1958. --- Decided: June 30, 1958
Mr. William F. Walsh, Houston, Tex., for petitioner.
Mr. John L. Murphy, for respondent.
Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Giordano v. City of Asbury Park/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 745
Giordano v. City of Asbury Park
Mr. Gabriele Giordano, pro se.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and
For opinion below, see 91 F.(2d) 455.
The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the papers herein submitted, finds no ground upon which writs of certiorari should be issued. The petition of certiorari is therefore also denied.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse