Cash Assistance Appeal Case

"Cornell Law says that if you have a late filling of an appeal note, then that note will be disregarded along with the appeal request. If you get the court to grant you more time, than that is acceptable, but other wise the request will be dismissed. ("HAMER v. NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVS. OF CHICAGO").

Regulations found at 55 Pa. Code § 275.5 stated that the issue “is not whether the CAO or administering agency acted properly based upon the information then available, but whether the appellant was eligible for the period of time at issue based upon evidence of eligibility the client is able to provide at or before the hearing”. The Department’s Representative’s testimony was that the new determination based on the new information was still pending with another Department worker and that the issue of the appeal was related to category MG-91, specifically. The ALJ finds that prior to the administrative hearing the Department was in receipt of information that could have altered the Appellant’s eligibility for MA. Prior to the administrative hearing, the Appellant should have been reviewed for eligibility under the MAWD program as requested on her appeal and issued a new eligibility determination, but the Department failed to do

This appeal involves a dispute regarding the interpretation of overtime pay provisions outlined in the Howard County General Pay Plan (“HCGPP”). Appellant, Lynda Neser (“Neser”) contends that she was deprived of compensation to which she was entitled under certain provisions of the HCGPP. Neser filed a grievance with the Howard County Personnel Office. A personnel officer denied Neser’s grievance. Neser then appealed the personnel officer’s decision to the appellees, the Howard County Personnel Board (“the Board”). The Board adopted the findings of the personnel officer and affirmed the denial of Neser’s grievance. Neser then filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Howard County. The circuit court affirmed the

I basely terminated my Pensacola Housing Voucher Program. The reason why, I left Pensacola, FL was to come back to my mother's house of resident in Tallahassee, FL to help her and myself for health issues. In addition, I did the terminated in Pensacola, FL before I came to Tallahassee. At my mother we did not see eye to eye, so I decide to move out. Therefore, I call Pensacola Housing, and they wise me that 10 days have passed by so that terminates me out of the Housing Voucher Program. However, I was wise; I have the rights to appropriate judicial proceedings. Furthermore an attorney is the only thing can get me back on the Housing Voucher Program if not I will have to get back on the two year waiting list again. By having an attorney sending

Petitioner’s counsel raised the issue of whether BISD improperly included legal counsel in ARD meetings in her May 26, 2015 Motion. BISD filed a written response and exhibits contesting the issue and the question of whether BISD improperly included legal counsel in ARD meetings was determined by Hearing Officer Kilgore via June 2, 2015 Order (“Order 8”) . Therefore, whether the District improperly included legal counsel in the

The question on appeal, therefore, is not whether the CAO or administering agency acted properly based upon the information then available, but whether the appellant was eligible for the period of time at issue based upon evidence of eligibility the client is able to provide at or before the hearing.” Furthermore, the burden of establishing eligibility for assistance programs rests with the

However, when arguing as to why the appeal should be honored the Alvas argued that the stamp clock stamped an inaccurate time on the request. The Plaintiffs asserted that they had filed their request on time and that the malfunctioning time stamp clock was to blame. This was the only defense put forth by the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, council for the Plaintiffs admitted to knowing that the request was filed late, and still argued that the request should be honored. The Plaintiffs also cited two cases Kontrick and Eberhart, arguing that the decisions in these cases make the legitimacy of this request to appeal fall under the jurisdiction of the

Elmore County DHR’s testimony revealed that based on the request for a hearing that the non-custodial parent’s (NCP) attorney sent, the agency is under the impression that the NCP’s attorney is of the opinion that the court findings is that the arrears could not be determine; dismiss the arrears. The custodial parent (CP), Tracey Boozer, applied for services on June 10, 2014. At that time, the agency completed an Affidavit of Past Due Support based on the divorce and the courts payment record. The agency filed a contempt action with the court against the NCP. On October 27, 2014, the court referee ruled that it was unable to determine the arrears. The order quoted “Arrears are unable to be determined after testimony.” Afterward, through

According to the Seven Circuit court’s ruling and the Supreme Court holding is that the petitioner had previously been involved in other three related felony issues. These felonies were consequently recorded towards the end of the month of November in 1995 and they include two robbery convictions and an attempt to flee law enforcement

In your grievance filed at Red Rock, you claim staff confiscated photos from your incoming mail. You further assert, Department Order 914 does not prohibit photos of the female anatomy from a medical perspective. Your resolution is to receive and possess the photos.

The district court had jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this issue involves a federal question. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on March, 2018. Petitioner’s filed their notice of appeal within the 30-day limit allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which provides for review of all final decisions of district courts.

Therefore, this is a final order and it was proper for the father to file his Notice of Appeal within 30 days from March, 16, 2016. The father entered the Notice of Appeal on March 26, 2016, ten (10) days after. Consequently, this Court has jurisdiction to heard this case, which was filed in a timely manner.

I have reviewed your appeal dated September 1, 2015. In your complaint, you contend the percent required to serve should be 50% instead of 80% regarding St. Louis County Cause 11SL-CR08266 (Sequence 12) and St. Charles County Cause 1111-CR06523-01(Sequence 13). You contend the 2009 Long Term Treatment incarceration under Cycle 20071105 should not count as a commitment; however, because this is your second Long Term Treatment incarceration it does count as a prior commitment. You were received in the Missouri Department of Corrections on October 27, 1997, to serve your first Long Term Treatment commitment regarding St. Louis County Cause 97CR-000779A (Sequence 11) and 96CR-06039 (Sequence 12). Had you successfully completed the program and released

Whether the circuit court erred by denying Johnson’s motion to exclude documents under Md. Rule 5-901.

Filing an appeal is ordinarily a two step process: firstly, file the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal is filed with the lower district court, which simply notifies the lower district court that the defendant is appealing the case. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals may not consider an appeal, if the lower district court has not received timely notice of appeal. In criminal appeals, notice of appeal must be filed within ten days from the date the lower district court’s judgment if filed (Levenson, 2017).