Citation network
Norton Vs. Mathews
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 29, 1976
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 524 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Norton v. MathewsSearch
-
U.S. 524 (1976) Norton v. MathewsSearch
-
Since the decision in Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
d)(3) and 416(h)(3)(C)(ii), as was presented in Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
Amendment. Appellant's statutory claim was initially considered and rejected by a single District Judge. Norton v. RichardsonSearch
-
judge court first agreed with, and reaffirmed, the single judge's rejection of appellant's statutory claim. Norton v. WeinbergerSearch
-
While his jurisdictional statement was pending, Jimenez v. WeinbergerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the three-judge court's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in the light of Jimenez. Norton v. WeinbergerSearch
-
judge court, with one judge now dissenting, adhered to its earlier conclusion in favor of constitutionality. Norton v. WeinbergerSearch
-
of jurisdiction to the hearing of the case on the merits, 422 U.S. 1054 (1975), and, in doing so, cited Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
S. 763 n. 8 (1975), which just then had been decided. Subsequently, we set the case for oral argument with Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
close jurisdictional arguments. The substantive questions raised on this appeal now have been determined in Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
convened, and that we have jurisdiction over the appeal, the appropriate disposition, in the light of Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
imposes. Bailey v. PattersonSearch
-
U. S. 31 , 369 U. S. 34 (1962), quoting Gully v. InterstateSearch
-
case for the entry of a fresh decree from which an appeal may be taken to the appropriate court of appeals. Gonzalez v. EmployeesSearch
-
even to support the jurisdiction of a three-judge district court to consider their merits on remand. See, e.g., Hicks v. MirandaSearch
-
in remanding to enable the merits to be considered by a court of Page 427 U. S. 532 appeals. See McLucas v. DeChamplainSearch
-
when the case alternatively could be resolved on the merits in favor of the same party. See Secretary of the Navy v. AvrechSearch
-
this even when the original reason for granting certiorari was to resolve the jurisdictional issue. See United States v. AugenblickSearch
-
reason why we may not so proceed in this case where the merits have been rendered plainly insubstantial. Cf. McLucas v. DeChamplainSearch
-
we affirm the judgment in favor of the Secretary Page 427 U. S. 533 on the basis of our decision in Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
d)(3) and 416(h)(3)(C)(ii). See generally Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
In contrast to the situation in Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
See Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
Norton v. RichardsonSearch
-
thus there is no jurisdiction over the class aspects of the case. Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
three-judge court. He did so because he considered the constitutional infirmity of the Article to be plain. See Bailey v. PattersonSearch
-
we ordinarily were bound to vacate the judgment and remand for the convening of a three-judge court. Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
FHA v. TheSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting. In Jimenez v. WeinbergerSearch
-
three-judge court was properly convened in a case raising the same jurisdictional issue this case raises. See Jimenez v. WeinbergerSearch
-
the three-judge court in this case and remanded for further consideration in light of the Jimenez case, Norton v. WeinbergerSearch
-
challenged as unconstitutional, the District Court has jurisdiction to decide the constitutional issue. Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
Nor would it prevent later certification of an appropriate, narrower class. Cf. Jimenez v. WeinbergerSearch
-
On the merits, I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Mathews v. LucasSearch
-
Jimenez v. RichardsonSearch
-
F.Supp. 1356, 1358 (ND Ill.1973), vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Jimenez v. WeinbergerSearch
-
Maracle v. RichardsonSearch
-
Williams v. RichardsonSearch
-
Court has enjoined enforcement of provisions of the Social Security Act. See Jurisdictional Statement in Mathews v. DiazSearch
-
Jurisdictional Statement in Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial