512 F.2d 1188 - Johnson v. Harder — 512 F.2d 1188

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2007

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *1189Francis J. MacGregor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn. (Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

¶2Norman J. Johnson, Waterbury, Conn. (Waterbury Legal Aid, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellees.

¶3Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, SMITH, Circuit Judge, and MacMAHON, District Judge.*

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6This ease was affirmed in open court. In order to afford our decision precedential value,1 however, and conclusively to resolve this issue within our circuit, we issue this brief per curiam. For the reasons stated by Chief Judge Kaufman in open court,2 we affirm on Judge Blumenfeld’s opinion below, 383 F.Supp. 174 (D.Conn.1974).

¶8. The statement delivered from the bench was as follows:

We agree with Judge Blumenfeld that the Connecticut regulations conflict with the federal scheme for providing OASDI benefits. The federal statutes and regulations, taken in conjunction with Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413, 93 S.Ct. 590, 34 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973), evidence a clear intention that OASDI funds be used for the beneficiary’s needs, as he or his representative payee may best determine. It would subvert this scheme to permit a state to automatically treat such benefits as available for the needs of a parent or of other children. We are buttressed in our opinion by the interpretive letter written by John Costa, the administrative official charged with interpreting the OASDI provisions, whose views are entitled to great weight. Accordingly, we affirm on Judge Blumenfeld’s opinion below.