Talk:Goldberg v. Kelly

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

6-3 or 5-3[edit]

There seems to be some confusion on the number of justices in the parts of the decision since I have seen this listed as a 6-3 and as a 5-3 decision. So which one is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.28.161.214 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC) I have also seenit listed as 7-2 :> While the Court has accorded property rights, of a sort, in certain entitlements, I'm curious as to the obligation of municipal governments to provide services equally to the persons living within their jurisdiction. For example, can a city provide fire protection for all of the citizens of that city except for those living in a particular subdivision? Or can they require persons living in a certain part of the City's jurisdiction to pay a special assessment for emergency services that are otherwise provided to the rest of the community without any special assessment?[reply]

Earl Warren is listed as Chief Justice, but he retired in the summer of 1968... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.129.226 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there was a vacancy on the court, owing to fortas' resignation (in disgrace).the decision was 5-3. Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a case 5 years later, Mathews v. Eldridge (US 1975), 424 U.S. 319, the Court summarized what they considered were Goldberg's elements of an "evidentiary hearing": "In Goldberg the Court held that the pretermination hearing must include the following elements: (1) “timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for a proposed termination”; (2) “an effective opportunity (for the recipient) to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally”; (3) retained counsel, if desired; (4) an “impartial” decisionmaker; (5) a decision resting “solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing”; (6) a statement of reasons for the decision and the evidence relied on." I find this summary much easier to understand than the one currently found in the article, and may include some things left out by the original article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.110.214 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having the entire majority opinion and Black's dissent on this page is not helpful. This is too much information and should be consolidated. ----dannycas (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example[edit]

that photo isn't a very good example of a tenement. don't think i'd mind living there. oughtta get a PRE- restoration shot.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting superfluous content, i.e. the whole opinion[edit]

It may have been hasty of me to delete 80% of the article in one fell swoop, but I don't think it can be seriously argued that the entire text of the opinion, plus the dissent, copied and pasted wholesale, but denuded of citations, really belongs here. It adds unnecessary bulk, is of no value to the lay reader, and it's just not how these articles are written. Somebody, please, fix this, or I'll do it myself. Grifter84 (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit and the following ones. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of incomplete references, January 2022[edit]

Several incomplete references which refer to page numbers only were removed and replaced with citation needed tags, because they are not acceptable references. Each Reference needs to be clear as to what work the reference refers to. e.g. citing Goldberg at 254 would be an acceptable reference, where citing pp.254-267 is not an acceptable reference because the refernece needs to state to what the page numbers belong to. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro v. Thompson & King v. Smith[edit]

Shapiro v. Thompson wiki article was overhauled! I am linking this case to Shapiro and King as they are all a part of the 'The Welfare Cases'. I included a citation for that information as well. Apeoples7 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]