Whitfield

Whitfield v. Board of Supervisors

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 95·227 Cal. App. 3d 451·277 Cal. Rptr. 815·91 Daily Journal DAR 1463·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 924
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 1991A048613California3,773 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benson, J.

Ten homeless general assistance recipients appeal from the trial court’s denial of their petition for writ of mandate. Appellants challenge the adequacy of Alameda County’s general assistance grant level. Specifically, they ask that the county be ordered to conduct a factual study of the cost of subsistence for Alameda County indigents and to enact a new general assistance ordinance based on that study. The issue on appeal is whether the county satisfied its mandatory duty under the Welfare and Institutions Code to determine and adopt an appropriate standard of aid and care for its indigent population. We hold that it did not and reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

The relevant facts are undisputed. In 1978 Alameda County’s general assistance (GA) grant was $132 per month. That year GA recipients sued the county in a class action to raise the GA grant (Thames v. Alameda County, Super. Ct. Alameda County, No. 514682-0).

After the lawsuit was filed, Alameda County conducted a study of subsistence costs of GA recipients in the county (the 1979 GA study). The study, submitted to the respondent Alameda County Board of Supervisors (Board), calculated costs of housing,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.