TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Doe v. Gillman

Jane DOE, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Child, Jennifer, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. James N. GILLMAN, Commissioner, State of Iowa, Department of Social Services, and Alva C. Edwards, Director of Clayton County Department of Social Services, Defendants

Doe v. Gillman, 347 F. Supp. 482 (N.D. Iowa 1972)
Court
District Court, N.D. Iowa · Federal District Courts
Decided
September 1, 1972
Docket
No. 72-C-515-EC
Judges
Bright, McManus, Hanson
Citations
347 F. Supp. 4821972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12124

Opinion — McMANUS

McMANUS, Chief District Judge.

This matter is before the court on its own motion to remand to one-judge court for consideration of the statutory issues raised.

Plaintiff’s complaint challenges § 239.-5 Code of Iowa 1971 as violating the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amend *483 ments to the Constitution of the United States and being inconsistent with the Social Security Act of 1935. Under the circumstances in this case it appears that the statutory claim should be determined and adjudicated before the constitutional issues are reached, and, that a one-judge court is the proper forum for that claim. Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 403 , 90 S.Ct. 1207 , 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475 , 90 S.Ct. 1153 , 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970); Wyman v. Rothstein, 398 U.S. 275, 276 , 90 S.Ct. 1582 , 26 L.Ed.2d 218 (1970); Saddler v. Winstead, 327 F.Supp. 568 (N.D.Miss.1971).

It is therefore Ordered This action is remanded to Edward J. McManus, Chief District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa for determination and adjudication of plaintiff’s claim that the regulation aforesaid is invalid because it is in conflict with and violative of the Social Security Act of 1935 and regulations thereunder.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1972: 11973: 11979: 21981: 11982: 11996: 119722026peak 1979 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970) 3,016
Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397 (1970) 1,159
Wyman v. Rothstein, 398 U.S. 275 (1970) 43
Saddler v. Winstead, 327 F. Supp. 568 (N.D. Miss. 1971) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list