Citation network
Sims Vs. Apfel
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 28, 2000
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. 103 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Sims V. ApfelSearch
-
to which the analogy to normal adversarial litigation applies in a particular administrative proceeding. See Hormel v. HelveringSearch
-
After a state agency denied her claims, she obtained a hearing before a Social Security ALJ. See generally Heckler v. DaySearch
-
s first contention. With regard to the second and third contentions, it concluded that, under its decision in Paul v. ShalalaSearch
-
James v. ChaterSearch
-
F.3d 1341 , 1343-1344 (CAlO 1996), with Harwood v. ApfelSearch
-
Johnson v. ApfelSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
imposed issueexhaustion requirement proper, the Fifth Circuit erred in treating it as jurisdictional. Cf. Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
Bowen v. CitySearch
-
that requirements of administrative issue exhaustion are largely creatures of statute. Marine Mammal Conservancy, Inc. v. DepartmentSearch
-
latter regulations. 108 exhaustion reflect this fact. For example, in Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRBSearch
-
e) (1982 ed.)). Our decision in FPC v. ColoradoSearch
-
Television and Children v. FCCSearch
-
against the bypassing of that requirement by refusing to consider unexhausted issues. See, e. g., South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. FTCSearch
-
courts will not consider 109 arguments not raised before trial courts. As the Court explained in Hormel v. HelveringSearch
-
there. 344 U. S., at 36-37. (We also spoke favorably of issue exhaustion in Unemployment Compensation Comm'n of Alaska v. AragonSearch
-
to which the analogy to normal adversariallitigation applies in a particular administrative proceeding. Cf. McKart v. UnitedSearch
-
Aragon v. UnemploymentSearch
-
FCC v. PottsvilleSearch
-
ALJ's duty to investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting benefits, see Richardson v. PeralesSearch
-
Brief for Respondent 41-42. As a matter of past practice, the agency's statement appears to be inaccurate. See Owens v. ApfelSearch
-
Unemployment Compensation Comm'n of Alaska v. AragonSearch
-
rule applies. See, e. g., Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. BowenSearch
-
agency, but those differences argue in favor of, not against, applying the waiver principle here. Cf. SEC v. ChenerySearch
-
interruption of the administrative process and to enable the expert agency to develop the necessary facts. McKart v. UnitedSearch
-
g), (h). See generally Shalala v. IllinoisSearch
-
them in court. The Fifth Circuit, moreover, had precedent applying the general rule in this specific context. Paul v. ShalalaSearch
-
Syllabus SIMS v. APFELSearch
-
See Hormel v. HelveringSearch
-
Paul v. ShalalaSearch
-
Harwood v. ApfelSearch
-
Cf. Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
Marine Mammal Conservancy, Inc. v. DepartmentSearch
-
Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRBSearch
-
FPC v. ColoradoSearch
-
Television and Children v. FCCSearch
-
South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. McKart v. UnitedSearch
-
See Owens v. ApfelSearch
-
Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. BowenSearch
-
Cf. SEC v. ChenerySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial