Smith v. Harris
This text of 622 F.2d 185 (Smith v. Harris) 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.
Opinion
Smith 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.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
622 F.2d 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-harris-ca5-1980.