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.
Samkowski, Acting Director, Marion County Department of Public Welfare v. Carter et al.; and Stanton, Director, Indiana Department of Public Welfare, et al. v. Carter et al., 1974 — 416 U.S. 918 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Samkowski, Acting Director, Marion County Department of Public Welfare v. Carter et al.; and Stanton, Director, Indiana Department of Public Welfare, et al. v. Carter et al.
416 U.S. 918·Supreme Court of the United States·1974
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
No. 72-1734.
No. 73-37.
Samkowski, Acting Director, Marion County Department of Public Welfare v. Carter et al.; and Stanton, Director, Indiana Department of Public Welfare, et al. v. Carter et al.
[MAJORITY]
Appeals from D. C. S. D. Ind. Motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Edelman. v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974). Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm the judgment for the reasons set forth in his dissent in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 678 (1974). Mr. Justice Brennan would affirm the judgment.