Citation network
Astrue Vs. Ratliff
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 07, 2010
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Syllabus October Term, 2009 Astrue V. RatliffSearch
-
that refers to the prevailing litigant. See, e.g. , Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. WestSearch
-
s. See, e.g. , Evans v. JeffSearch
-
a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Astrue v. RatliffSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Astrue V. RatliffSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-1322 Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Petitioner V. CatherineSearch
-
with, e.g. , Reeves v. AstrueSearch
-
Manning v. AstrueSearch
-
FDL Technologies, Inc . v. UnitedSearch
-
Panola Land Buying Assn. v. ClarkSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id ., at 602 (citing Key Tronic Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 511 U. S. 809 , 819 (1994)). Nothing in EAJA supports a different reading. Cf. Arthur Andersen LLP v. CarlisleSearch
-
Reply Brief for Petitioner 4 (emphasis in original) (citing Hewitt v. HelmsSearch
-
and natural construction of the operative statutory language is reflected in our cases. See, e.g ., Scarborough v. PrincipiSearch
-
See, e.g. , Venegas v. MitchellSearch
-
see also Evans v. JeffSearch
-
b) fees cannot be determined until the Administration enters a final benefits ruling. See Shalala v. SchaeferSearch
-
Commissioner v. JeanSearch
-
see also Scarborough v. PrincipiSearch
-
s fees, after all, is to enable a prevailing litigant to pay her attorney. See, e.g., Missouri v. JenkinsSearch
-
EAJA fee awards directly to the attorney, not the prevailing party. Stephens ex rel. R. E. v. AstrueSearch
-
see also Bryant v. CommissionerSearch
-
whether this effect is one it actually intends. Bartlett v. StricklandSearch
-
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. WestSearch
-
Evans v. JeffSearch
-
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Petitioner V. CatherineSearch
-
Reeves v. AstrueSearch
-
Key Tronic Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Arthur Andersen LLP v. CarlisleSearch
-
Venegas v. MitchellSearch
-
See Shalala v. SchaeferSearch
-
R. E. v. AstrueSearch
-
Bryant v. CommissionerSearch
-
Hewitt v. HelmsSearch
-
Missouri v. JenkinsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial