Goldberg v. Kelly
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Goldberg_v._Kelly an entity of type: Thing
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government welfare benefits can be deprived of such benefits.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Goldberg v. Kelly
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Goldberg, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York v. Kelly, et al.
xsd:integer
1456239
xsd:integer
1081713823
rdf:langString
Black
rdf:langString
Stewart
rdf:langString
Burger
rdf:langString
Douglas, Harlan, White, Marshall
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Kelly v. Wyman, 294 F. Supp. 893 ; probable jurisdiction noted, .
xsd:integer
254
xsd:integer
397
xsd:gMonthDay
--10-13
xsd:integer
1969
rdf:langString
Goldberg v. Kelly,
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-23
xsd:integer
1970
rdf:langString
Goldberg, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York v. Kelly, et al.
rdf:langString
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a full evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government benefits is deprived of such benefits.
rdf:langString
Goldberg v.
Kelly
rdf:langString
Brennan
rdf:langString
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government welfare benefits can be deprived of such benefits. The individual losing benefits is entitled to an oral hearing before an impartial decision-maker as well as the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and the right to a written statement setting out the evidence relied upon and the legal basis for the decision. There is no right to a formal trial. The case was decided 5–3. (There was a vacancy on the Court because of the resignation of Abe Fortas.)
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
12533
