Citation network
Schweiker Vs. Hansen
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 06, 1981
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. 785 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Schweiker v. HansenSearch
-
U.S. 785 (1981) Schweiker v. HansenSearch
-
Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. MerrillSearch
-
that the majority's conclusion is irreconcilable with decisions of this Court, e.g., Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. MerrillSearch
-
U. S. 5 (1973) (per curiam), and with decisions of other Courts of Appeals, Leimbach v. CalifanoSearch
-
Cheers v. SecretarySearch
-
involved. INS v. HibiSearch
-
applicant has lost Social Security benefits because of possibly erroneous replies to oral inquiries. See Leimbach v. CalifanoSearch
-
Goldberg v. WeinbergerSearch
-
Simon v. CalifanoSearch
-
Parker v. FinchSearch
-
Flamm v. RibicoffSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
But, at worst, Connelly's conduct did not cause respondent to take action cf. Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. MerrillSearch
-
supra, or fail to take action, cf. Montana v. KennedySearch
-
F.2d. at 956 (Friendly, J., dissenting). See United States v. CaceresSearch
-
a serious question whether petitioner is estopped from insisting upon compliance with the valid regulation. Montana v. KennedySearch
-
cases, the Government had entered into written agreements which supported the claim of estoppel. E.g., United States v. LazySearch
-
Walsonavich v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d 96, 100-101 (CA3 1964). In others, estoppel did not threaten the public fisc as estoppel does here. E.g., Semaan v. MumfordSearch
-
applications because it had to file before the Government would provide it with necessary information. United States v. FoxSearch
-
from other Courts of Appeals, and has been the subject of considerable ferment. See, e.g., Corniel-Rodriguez v. INSSearch
-
United States v. LazySearch
-
Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
Semaan v. MumfordSearch
-
Eichelberer v. CommissionerSearch
-
factual differences cited by the majority are of any real consequence. For example, the majority distinguishes Semaan v. MumfordSearch
-
instead of some other form of Government action or inaction. Similarly, the majority distinguishes United States v. FoxSearch
-
estoppel against the Government has not been restricted in the past to written misrepresentations, see, e.g., Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
Ironically, the central case relied on by the majority today, INS v. HibiSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Schweiker v. HansenSearch
-
Courts of Appeals, Leimbach v. CalifanoSearch
-
See Leimbach v. CalifanoSearch
-
See United States v. CaceresSearch
-
E.g., United States v. LazySearch
-
E.g., Semaan v. MumfordSearch
-
Corniel-Rodriguez v. INSSearch
-
United States v. FoxSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial