Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Linda ALCALA et al., Appellees, v. Kevin J. BURNS, Individually and in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of the State of Iowa Department of Social Services, and Michael Ryan, Individually and in his capacity as Director of the Scott County Department of Social Services, Appellants, 1975 — 514 F.2d 1002 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Linda ALCALA et al., Appellees, v. Kevin J. BURNS, Individually and in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of the State of Iowa Department of Social Services, and Michael Ryan, Individually and in his capacity as Director of the Scott County Department of Social Services, Appellants
514 F.2d 1002·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Linda ALCALA et al., Appellees, v. Kevin J. BURNS, Individually and in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of the State of Iowa Department of Social Services, and Michael Ryan, Individually and in his capacity as Director of the Scott County Department of Social Services, Appellants.
No. 73-1595.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 23, 1975.
Before MATTHES, Senior Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Circuit Judge, and TALBOT SMITH, Senior District Judge.
Hon. Talbot Smith, Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
[MAJORITY]
ORDER OF REMAND
This action is remanded to the district court for consideration of the equal protection and due process issues raised by plaintiffs, who were the appellees in this court and respondents in the Supreme Court, in accordance with the order of remand by the Supreme Court in its opinion, - U.S. -, 95 S.Ct. 1180, 43 L.Ed.2d 373, filed March 18, 1975.