Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sullivan Vs. Hudson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 12, 1989

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

60 entries 1 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Pierce Vs. Underwood US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1988
  2. U.S. 877 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  3. U.S. 877 (1989) Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  4. status until after the result of the administrative proceedings is known. Cf. Hanrahan v. Hampton
    Search
  5. Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search
  6. by providing for fees, they should be considered part of the action for which fees may be awarded. Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  7. New York Gas Light Club, Inc. v. Carey
    Search
  8. Secretary's decision and instructed the District Court to remand the case to the Secretary for reconsideration. Hudson v. Heckler
    Search
  9. App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a-20a. The Court of Appeals again reversed. Hudson v. Secretary
    Search
  10. a Social Security benefits determination conflicts with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals, see, e.g., Cornella v. Schweiker
    Search
  11. F.2d 978, 988-989 (CA8 1984), we granted the Secretary's petition for certiorari. Sub nom. Bowen v. Hudson
    Search
  12. scope of the remand, the evidence to be adduced, and the legal or factual issues to be addressed. See, e.g., Cooper v. Bowen
    Search
  13. used for determining claimant disability. See, e.g., Cole v. Secretary
    Search
  14. administrative proceedings is itself legal error, subject to reversal on further judicial review. See, e.g., Hooper v. Heckler
    Search
  15. Mefford v. Gardner
    Search
  16. will retain jurisdiction over the action pending the Secretary's decision and its filing with the court. See Ahghazali v. Secretary
    Search
  17. Taylor v. Heckler
    Search
  18. Brown v. Secretary
    Search
  19. The court retains the power in such situations to assure that its prior mandate is effectuated. See Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  20. proceedings is known. The situation is for all intents and purposes identical to that we addressed in Hanrahan v. Hampton
    Search
  21. Page 490 U. S. 887 Id. at 446 U. S. 759 . More recently in Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search
  22. meaning of the EAJA merely because a court had remanded the action to the agency for further proceedings. See Hewitt v. Helms
    Search
  23. S. 760 (1987). Indeed, the vast majority of the Courts of Appeals have come to this conclusion. See, e.g., Paulson v. Bowen
    Search
  24. Swedberg v. Bowen
    Search
  25. Brown v. Secretary
    Search
  26. a claimant's civil action for judicial review until the administrative proceedings on remand are complete. See Guthrie v. Schweiker
    Search
  27. for fees, they should be considered part and parcel of the action for which fees may be awarded. In Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  28. U.S. at 478 U. S. 558 . Similarly, in New York Gas Light Club, Inc. v. Carey
    Search
  29. the statutory scheme whose enforcement the fee-shifting provisions was designed to promote. Ibid. See also Webb v. Dyer
    Search
  30. North Carolina Dept. of Transportation v. Crest
    Search
  31. behind the EAJA itself, Congress cannot lightly be assumed to have intended it. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
    Search
  32. the Secretary's position on judicial review was not substantially justified within the meaning of the EAJA, see Pierce v. Underwood
    Search
  33. b)(1)(C) either initially or on remand from a court. See Richardson v. Perales
    Search
  34. indicates Congress' intent not to authorize recovery of fees in nonadversary agency adjudications. See TVA v. Hill
    Search
  35. proceedings as part of an ongoing civil action in court. In this regard, the majority's reliance on Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  36. Valley Citizens' Council, 478 U. S. 546 (1986), and New York Gas Light Club, Inc. v. Carey
    Search
  37. as well as Webb v. Dyer
    Search
  38. and North Carolina Dept. of Transportation v. Crest
    Search
  39. U.S. Supreme Court Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  40. Cf. Hanrahan v. Hampton
    Search
  41. Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  42. Hudson v. Heckler
    Search
  43. Hudson v. Secretary
    Search
  44. Cornella v. Schweiker
    Search
  45. Bowen v. Hudson
    Search
  46. Cooper v. Bowen
    Search
  47. Cole v. Secretary
    Search
  48. Hooper v. Heckler
    Search
  49. See Ahghazali v. Secretary
    Search
  50. See Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial