Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Shalala Vs. Schaefer

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 31, 1993

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

56 entries 5 linked 51 unlinked
Show
  1. Melkonyan Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1991
  2. Sullivan Vs. Hudson US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1989
  3. Bankers Trust Co. Vs. Mallis US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1978
  4. Sullivan Vs. Finkelstein US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1990
  5. Farrar Vs. Hobby US Supreme Court · Oct 07, 1992
  6. U.S. 292 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services V. Schaefer
    Search
  7. a judgment. Pp. 295-297. (b) The Court's decision in Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  8. g). Pp. 298-300. 293 (c) Contrary to dicta in Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  9. set out in Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search
  10. The District Court stayed action on Schaefer's EAJA application pending this Court's imminent ruling in Melkonyan v. Sullivan
    Search
  11. District Court, however, found Schaefer's EAJA application timely under the controlling Circuit precedent of Welter v. Sullivan
    Search
  12. Emphasis added.) In Melkonyan v. Sullivan
    Search
  13. a judgment. See Sullivan v. Finkelstein
    Search
  14. cf. Sullivan v. Finkelstein
    Search
  15. Schaefer raises two arguments that merit further discussion. The first is based on our decision in Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  16. become a prevailing party until Social Security benefits are actually awarded. Reply Brief for Petitioner in Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  17. the decision even in part. See Brecht v. Abrahamson
    Search
  18. distinction between the two types of remand had not been made in the lower court opinions in Hudson, see Hudson v. Secretary
    Search
  19. App. to Pet. for Cert. in Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  20. for the first time in the closing pages of the Secretary's reply brief, see Reply Brief for Petitioner in Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  21. status relied on three cases, none of which supports that proposition as applied to sentence-four remands. Hanrahan v. Hampton
    Search
  22. procedural ruling (the reversal on appeal of a directed verdict) during the course of the judicial proceedings. Hewitt v. Helms
    Search
  23. Pet. for Cert. in Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  24. of course, is a judgment for the plaintiff.) And the third case cited in Hudson, Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search
  25. sentence-four judgment reversing the Secretary's denial of benefits certainly meets this description. See also Farrar v. Hobby
    Search
  26. See United States v. Indrelunas
    Search
  27. is Affirmed. JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN joins, concurring in the judgment. In Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  28. id., at 889. Two Terms later, in Melkonyan v. Sullivan
    Search
  29. Mel- 1 See, e. g., Hafner v. Sullivan
    Search
  30. Labrie v. Secretary
    Search
  31. Gutierrez v. Sullivan
    Search
  32. U. S. 617 , 630 (1990). See also Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  33. proceedings is known. The situation is for all intents and purposes identical to that we addressed in Hanrahan v. Hampton
    Search
  34. Id., at 759. More recently in Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search
  35. meaning of the EAJA merely because a court had remanded the action to the agency for further proceedings. See Hewitt v. Helms
    Search
  36. Indeed, the vast majority of the Courts of Appeals have come to this conclusion. See, e. g., Paulson v. Bowen
    Search
  37. Swedberg v. Bowen
    Search
  38. Brown v. Secretary
    Search
  39. behind the EAJA itself, Congress cannot lightly be assumed to have intended it. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
    Search
  40. that statute. That sound and eminently reasonable conclusion was not undermined by our decision in Sullivan v. Finkelstein
    Search
  41. Hafner v. Sullivan
    Search
  42. while I agree with the Court's judgment in this case, I respectfully disagree with its decision to overrule Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  43. Syllabus Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services V. Schaefer
    Search
  44. Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search
  45. of Welter v. Sullivan
    Search
  46. In Melkonyan v. Sullivan
    Search
  47. See Sullivan v. Finkelstein
    Search
  48. See Brecht v. Abrahamson
    Search
  49. Hudson v. Secretary
    Search
  50. Hudson, Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial