Christine Adams, Individually and on Behalf of Minor Son, Randell Adams v. Richard Harden

Fifth Circuit

Christine Adams, Individually and on Behalf of Minor Son, Randell Adams v. Richard Harden

493 F.2d 21, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8955

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 1974

Docket73-1932

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 493 F.2d 21 (Christine Adams, Individually and on Behalf of Minor Son, Randell Adams v. Richard Harden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christine Adams, Individually and on Behalf of Minor Son, Randell Adams v. Richard Harden, 493 F.2d 21, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8955 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This was an action brought by plaintiff on December 30, 1972 under 42 U. S.C., § 1983 seeking to redress a claimed deprivation of federal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and under 28 U.S.C., § 2201 seeking a declaration of rights. Jurisdiction was claimed under 28 U.S.C., §§ 1343(3) and (4). The injury claimed was the result of a deviation under the State’s plan for Aid to Family with Dependent Children (AFDC) from the standards of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C., § 601 et seq., in the enforcement of portions of the Georgia statute, Ga.Laws 1937, p. 630, as amended, particularly by Ga. Laws 1964, p. 125, Ga.Code Ann., § 99-902, and the corresponding state regulation, which limited eligibility of sixteen-seventeen year olds under the State’s plan to those who attend school or who are physically unable to attend school. See Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282, 92 S.Ct. 502, 30 L.Ed.2d 448 (1971).

On February 16, 1972, the State regulations were amended to conform to Townsend v. Swank. Thereafter, no school attendance requirement was enforced.

The litigation continued in an effort to require the defendant to pay retroactively to the members of the class the sums which should have been paid between December 20, 1971 and February 16, 1972 had it not been for the offending regulation. The defense, among other things, pled the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court denied the claim and this appeal followed.

We heard oral argument at New Orleans, December 12, 1973 and deferred decision awaiting the outcome in the Supreme Court of Edelman v. Jordan [No. 72-6476].

*22 On March 25, 1974, the Supreme Court decided that case-U.S.-, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662. It was there held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal district court from awarding retroactive benefits under a federal-state public aid program that are ultimately payable from state’s general revenues.

The judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This was an action brought by plaintiff on December 30, 1972 under 42 U. S.C., § 1983 seeking to redress a claimed deprivation of federal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and under 28 U.S.C., § 2201 seeking a declaration of rights. Jurisdiction was claimed under 28 U.S.C., §§ 1343(3) and (4). The injury claimed was the result of a deviation under the State’s plan for Aid to Family with Dependent Children (AFDC) from the standards of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C., § 601 et seq., in the enforcement of portions of the Georgia statute, Ga.Laws 1937, p. 630, as amended, particularly by Ga. Laws 1964, p. 125, Ga.Code Ann., § 99-902, and the corresponding state regulation, which limited eligibility of sixteen-seventeen year olds under the State’s plan to those who attend school or who are physically unable to attend school. See Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282, 92 S.Ct. 502, 30 L.Ed.2d 448 (1971).

On February 16, 1972, the State regulations were amended to conform to Townsend v. Swank. Thereafter, no school attendance requirement was enforced.

The litigation continued in an effort to require the defendant to pay retroactively to the members of the class the sums which should have been paid between December 20, 1971 and February 16, 1972 had it not been for the offending regulation. The defense, among other things, pled the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court denied the claim and this appeal followed.

We heard oral argument at New Orleans, December 12, 1973 and deferred decision awaiting the outcome in the Supreme Court of Edelman v. Jordan [No. 72-6476].

*22 On March 25, 1974, the Supreme Court decided that case-U.S.-, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662. It was there held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal district court from awarding retroactive benefits under a federal-state public aid program that are ultimately payable from state’s general revenues.

The judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 F.2d 21, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christine-adams-individually-and-on-behalf-of-minor-son-randell-adams-v-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack