Court Opinion

ID: 9671355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:35:01.42999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:33.205173
License: Public Domain

Heffernan, J.
(concurring). I agree with the result reached by the court, but only because the question validly raised by the dissent is not necessarily reached in this case. In the event the recipient were obligated to return to his original legal settlement in order to receive welfare payments, the statute would be patently unconstitutional. I am convinced, however, by the very cases cited by the dissent that appellant constitutionally could not be denied payments either from the state or the county in which he now resides. It is apparent that the concept of “legal settlement” as revealed in this case — a concept that would make the original place of residence perpetually liable — is sheer nonsense. I am satisfied that the appellant cannot be obligated to return to the town of Vanden Broek. I am equally satisfied that the town of “legal settlement” should not have an obligation to make those payments after the recipient has removed himself from that locale for a reasonable length of time.