Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

622 F.2d 185

Docket No. 79-4069

Smith v. Harris

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided July 25, 1980.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1980-07-25

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1980

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Jimenez v. Weinberger · Easton v. United States · Williams v. Califano

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1980-07-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2J. David Crisp, Texarkana, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

¶3John W. Wojciechowski, Dept, of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, Md., for defendant-appellee.

¶4Before BROWN, TJOFLAT and FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., Circuit Judges.

¶6*186PER CURIAM:

¶7Smith challenges the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(d)(8)’s denial of secondary Social Security benefits to a child unrelated to and adopted after Smith became eligible for primary benefits. The only argument which was not considered and rejected by Williams v. Califano, 566 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 821, 99 S.Ct. 85, 58 L.Ed.2d 112 (1978), is that the then-decided decision in Jiminez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628, 94 S.Ct. 2496, 41 L.Ed.2d 363 (1974), mandates a different result. For the reasons well-stated by Clayborne v. Califano, 603 F.2d 372 (2d Cir. 1979), Jiminez is entirely consistent with our decision in Williams. Even were we able to reconsider the decision of another panel of our Circuit,1 we would agree with the analysis and result of Williams, and with the further elaboration by the Second Circuit in Clayborne.

¶8AFFIRMED.

/622/f2d/185 · .json · Public domain