Roe

Roe v. Anderson

Bad Law
134 F.3d 1400·1998 WL 28078
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 28, 1998No. 97-16326California2,482 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fletcher, J.

The State of California appeals the grant of a preliminary injunction to Brenda Roe, Anna Doe, and a certified class of all others similarly situated, who brought an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to prevent California from implementing Welfare and Institutions Code § 11450.03. That statute limits benefits to new residents in California for their first year of residency to the amount that they received under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in their state of prior residence. We affirm.

I.

We review on appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction. We have repeatedly instructed that

United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir.1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The grant of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, 1 and that discretion is abused where the district court “based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 , 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2461 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990).

Thus, we review only the district court’s consideration of the likelihood of success on the merits at one end…

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.