This HTML5 document contains 101 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
n23https://scholar.google.com/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n20https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
umbel-rchttp://umbel.org/umbel/rc/
n19https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/199/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n15https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/430/
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n17https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/109612/califano-v-goldfarb/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
n22http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep430/usrep430199/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n6https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/396/308/1872999/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
n18https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Califano_v._Goldfarb
rdf:type
umbel-rc:Event dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Case107308889 wikidata:Q2334719 owl:Thing yago:Event100029378 dbo:Case yago:Happening107283608 yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases dbo:LegalCase yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity dbo:UnitOfWork
rdfs:label
Califano v. Goldfarb
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
foaf:name
Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Leon Goldfarb
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Burger_Court dbc:1977_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_equal_protection_case_law dbc:Gender_discrimination_lawsuits dbc:Social_Security_lawsuits
dbo:wikiPageID
57305151
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1106960109
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Unconstitutional dbr:Due_Process_Clause dbr:Nadine_H._Taub dbr:Women's_Rights_Litigation_Clinic dbc:1977_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbr:Social_Security_Act dbr:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_Foundation dbr:Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:American_Civil_Liberties_Union dbr:L._Ed._2d dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Secretary_of_Health,_Education,_and_Welfare dbc:United_States_equal_protection_case_law dbr:United_States_Supreme_Court dbr:Gender_equality dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbc:Gender_discrimination_lawsuits dbr:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Joseph_A._Califano,_Jr. dbr:New_York_City dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_430 dbc:Social_Security_lawsuits dbr:Weinberger_v._Wiesenfeld dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_New_York dbr:Frontiero_v._Richardson dbr:F._Supp. dbr:List_of_gender_equality_lawsuits dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Burger_Court
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n6: n19:case.html n17: n23:scholar_case%3Fcase=3182270382673189375 n22:usrep430199.pdf n18:75-699 n15:199
owl:sameAs
freebase:m.04gq0nq wikidata:Q5019917 n20:4ek5Q yago-res:Califano_v._Goldfarb
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:US5thAmendment dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Ussc dbt:USCSub dbt:Cite_journal dbt:Cn
dbp:dissent
Rehnquist
dbp:joindissent
Burger, Stewart, Blackmun
dbp:oyez
n18:75-699
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
Goldfarb v. Sec'y of Health, Ed. & Welfare, 396 F. Supp. 308 ; probable jurisdiction noted, .
dbp:uspage
199
dbp:usvol
430
dbp:arguedate
0001-10-05
dbp:argueyear
1976
dbp:case
Califano v. Goldfarb,
dbp:courtlistener
n17:
dbp:decidedate
0001-03-02
dbp:decideyear
1977
dbp:fullname
Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Leon Goldfarb
dbp:holding
The gender-based distinction created by violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
dbp:justia
n19:case.html
dbp:litigants
Califano v. Goldfarb
dbp:loc
n22:usrep430199.pdf
dbo: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.
dbp:concurrence
Stevens
dbp:cornell
n15:199
dbp:googlescholar
n23:scholar_case%3Fcase=3182270382673189375
dbp:joinplurality
White, Marshall, Powell
dbp:plurality
Brennan
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Califano_v._Goldfarb?oldid=1106960109&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
12524
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Califano_v._Goldfarb