# Tripp v. Swoap

> California Supreme Court · August 3, 1976 · 17 Cal. 3d 671

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583929

## Case

- **Full name:** KATHLEEN TRIPP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID B. SWOAP, as Director, Etc., Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 3, 1976
- **Citations:** 17 Cal. 3d 671; 131 Cal. Rptr. 789; 552 P.2d 749; 1976 Cal. LEXIS 316
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clark
- **Judges:** Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 116 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Frink v. Prod, 31 Cal. 3d 166 (1982).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583929

## Opinion text

*686 CLARK, J., Dissenting.
The majority err in allowing a welfare recipient interest on unpaid aid, contravening both legislative intent and welfare’s purpose.
The Legislature has provided the recipient judicial review, mentioning filing fees, attorney’s fees and court costs. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10962.) But the same code makes no mention of interest.
The purpose of welfare is to provide subsistence to the needy. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 10000, 10001; Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S. 254, 264 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 296-297 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 ].) But it has not been shown that the addition of interest will alleviate Mrs. Tripp’s needs.
The welfare fund is a limited resource, derived from the labor of others. By now adding interest to the aid of one, we reduce the aid available to another. Today’s decision is inequitable to all.
McComb, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583929. Public record. Not legal advice.