About: Califano v. Goldfarb

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Califano v. Goldfarb Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : umbel-rc:Event, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FCalifano_v._Goldfarb

Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case was brought by a widower who was denied survivor benefits on the grounds that he had not been receiving at least one-half support from his wife when she died. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the court, ruling unconstitutional the provision of the Social Security Act which set forth a gender-based distinction between widows an

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	Thing case Legal Case unit of work Legal case yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity Supreme Court of the United States case umbel-rc:Event
rdfs:label	Califano v. Goldfarb (en)
rdfs:comment	Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case was brought by a widower who was denied survivor benefits on the grounds that he had not been receiving at least one-half support from his wife when she died. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the court, ruling unconstitutional the provision of the Social Security Act which set forth a gender-based distinction between widows an (en)
foaf:name	Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Leon Goldfarb (en)
dcterms:subject	Gender discrimination lawsuits United States Supreme Court cases United States equal protection case law Social Security lawsuits 1977 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Wikipage page ID	57305151 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1106960109 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	List of gender equality lawsuits Gender discrimination lawsuits List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430 Unconstitutional United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York United States Supreme Court Due Process Clause United States Supreme Court cases Ruth Bader Ginsburg Frontiero v. Richardson Gender equality United States equal protection case law Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld American Civil Liberties Union Social Security lawsuits 1977 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court L. Ed. 2d Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court of the United States Joseph A. Califano, Jr. Social Security Act Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution New York City American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare F. Supp. Nadine H. Taub U.S. LEXIS dbr:Women's_Rights_Litigation_Clinic
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/199/case.html http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep430/usrep430199/usrep430199.pdf https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/396/308/1872999/ https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=3182270382673189375 https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/109612/califano-v-goldfarb/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/430/199 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-699
sameAs	Califano v. Goldfarb Califano v. Goldfarb Califano v. Goldfarb Califano v. Goldfarb
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Cite_journal dbt:Cn dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Ussc dbt:USCSub dbt:US5thAmendment
Dissent	Rehnquist (en)
JoinDissent	Burger, Stewart, Blackmun (en)
oyez	https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-699
ParallelCitations	172800.0 (second)
Prior	Goldfarb v. Sec'y of Health, Ed. & Welfare, 396 F. Supp. 308 ; probable jurisdiction noted, . (en)
USPage	199 (xsd:integer)
USVol	430 (xsd:integer)
ArgueDate	0001-10-05 (xsd:gMonthDay)
ArgueYear	1976 (xsd:integer)
case	Califano v. Goldfarb, (en)
courtlistener	https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/109612/califano-v-goldfarb/
DecideDate	0001-03-02 (xsd:gMonthDay)
DecideYear	1977 (xsd:integer)
fullname	Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Leon Goldfarb (en)
Holding	The gender-based distinction created by violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (en)
justia	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/199/case.html
Litigants	Califano v. Goldfarb (en)
loc	http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep430/usrep430199/usrep430199.pdf
has abstract	Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case was brought by a widower who was denied survivor benefits on the grounds that he had not been receiving at least one-half support from his wife when she died. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the court, ruling unconstitutional the provision of the Social Security Act which set forth a gender-based distinction between widows and widowers, whereby Social Security Act survivors benefits were payable to a widower only if he was receiving at least half of his support from his late wife, while such benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband were payable to his widow regardless of dependency. The Court found that this distinction deprived female wage earners of the same protection that a similarly situated male worker would have received, violating due process and equal protection. (en)
Concurrence	Stevens (en)
cornell	https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/430/199
googlescholar	https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=3182270382673189375
JoinPlurality	White, Marshall, Powell (en)
Plurality	Brennan (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Califano_v._Goldfarb?oldid=1106960109&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	12524 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 62 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software