SWOAP V. SUPERIOR COURT
516 P.2d 840 (Cal. 1973)
NATURE OF THE CASE: [Practically none of this brief is in the casebook but it is required
for you to understand the law presented by the casebook]. The Superior Court of Sacramento
County issued a statewide temporary restraining order that enjoined state officials from
requiring adult children to reimburse the state, pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code
12100 and 12101. Defendants, state officials, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the
superior court from enforcing its restraining order.
FACTS: Two recipients of aid to the aged, Ila Huntley and Bieuky Dykstra, and their adult
children, Howard Huntley and Julius Dykstra, brought a class action seeking to enjoin state
officials from requiring adult children to reimburse the state, pursuant to sections 12100
and 12101, for aid to the aged extended to their parents. Plaintiff Howard Huntley is the
60-year-old son of 88-year-old widow Ila Huntley, who is the recipient of aid to the aged.
Huntley alleges in the complaint that he and his 67-year-old wife had a net monthly income
of $656.25; that they are trying to save money for their imminent retirement; that the San
Joaquin County Welfare Department ordered him, effective October 1, 1971, to pay the
department $70 per month for the support of his mother; and that he could not provide for
his own family and at the same time pay such a large sum. Plaintiff Julius Dykstra is the
son of 78-year-old widow, Bieuky Dykstra, who is the recipient of aid to the aged. Dykstra
alleges that the same welfare department demanded that he pay $75 per month for the support
of his mother; that he works as a truck driver and does not have $75 per month left after
paying his own family bills, including $180 a month for child support and $145 a month for
rent. On October 14, 1971 the Superior Court of Sacramento County issued a statewide
temporary restraining order, enjoining defendants from '[enforcing] against plaintiffs
Julius Dykstra and Howard Huntley, and the class of persons similarly situated, and
plaintiffs Bieuky Dykstra and Ila Huntley, and the class of persons similarly situated, the
provisions of W & I Code, 12100 and 12101. Defendants seek a writ of prohibition to
prevent the Sacramento Superior Court from enforcing its restraining order on the ground
that, since sections 12100 and 12101, and Civil Code section 206 are valid, the court had no
jurisdiction to enjoin defendants from administering these statutes. (Code Civ. Proc.,
526.)
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment