green
Positive treatment
7.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vernon J. Tatum, Jr v. United States of America, ET AL.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 753 (f) provides that the United States shall pay fees for transcripts furnished in non-criminal proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis “if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” “Free transcripts are provided only when a party raises a substantial question on appeal and demonstrates a particular need for the transcript.” Dillon v. Sessions, 20 F.3d 1169, 1169 (5th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barnum v. Welch
The Court also dismissed Barnum’s claims against the remaining defendants for failure to comply with the Court’s order that he properly serve those defendants.10 Barnum filed a notice of appeal.11 Title 28 U.S.C. § 753 (f) provides that the United States shall pay fees for transcripts furnished in non-criminal proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis “if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” “Free transcripts are provided only when a party raises a substantial question on appeal and d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Galloway v. Bond, Botes & Stover, P.C.
(2×)
Further, “[cjollateral estoppel will not apply ... if the party did not have a ‘full and fair’ opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior suit.” Sun v. U.S., 1994 WL 144643, 2 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 95 , 101 S.Ct. 411 , 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Velasquez v. O'Malley
See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 20 F.3d 1169 , 1173–74 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding the RFC assessment adequately captures 21 restrictions if it is consistent with the concrete limitations in the medical opinions); see also 22 Schneider v. Comm'r Soc.
cited
Cited "see"
Peddle v. Commissioner of Social Security
See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 20 F.3d 1169 , 1174 (9th Cir. 2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
National Leased Housing Association, and 189 Named v. United States
Henry Horner Mothers Guild v. Chicago Housing Auth., 824 F.Supp. 808 (N.D.Ill.1993) (tenants third party beneficiaries); accord Gomez v. Housing Auth. of City of El Paso, 805 F.Supp. 1363 (W.D.Tex.1992), aff'd 20 F.3d 1169 (5th Cir.1994) (table); Hurt v. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 806 F.Supp. 515 (E.D.Pa.1992); Guild v. Chicago Housing Auth., 780 F.Supp. 511 (N.D.Ill.1991); Tinsley v. Kemp, 750 F.Supp. 1001 (W.D.Mo.1990); and Concerned Tenants of Father Panik Village v. Pierce, 685 F.Supp. 316 (D.Conn.1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Addison Joelle Trager v. Martin O Malley
Sec. 19 Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 20 F.3d 1169 , 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting the ALJ’s responsibility to weigh conflicting 21 medical evidence and translate accepted medical opinions into “concrete restrictions”). 22 The ALJ’s RFC assessment should be affirmed if the ALJ applied the proper legal 23 standard and the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Torneanu v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
(Doc. 12 at 17–18.) The Court disagrees. 16 Where the hypothetical the ALJ poses to the VE contains all of the limitations the 17 ALJ finds credible and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the “ALJ’s reliance 18 on testimony the VE gave in response to the hypothetical . . . [is] proper.” Bayliss v. 19 Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 20 F.3d 1169 , 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that ALJ did not err in omitting limitations 21 not supported by substantial evidence in the record from the hypothetical posed to the VE)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arias v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
(Id.) 7 Arias argues the ALJ’s step-five finding is not support by substantial evidence for 8 three reasons: (1) in the ALJ’s hypothetical questions to the vocational expert (“VE”), the 9 ALJ omitted the limitations alleged by Arias and Diaz and assessed by Dr. Higgins; (2) 10 Arias’ RFC limitation requiring that she receive “redirection and reminders” at the start of 11 each shift and throughout the day amounts to “a sheltered work setting,” which is an 12 accommodation that would deem Arias disabled; (3) two of the representative 13 occupations—hand packager and small pro…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sun
v.
United States
v.
United States
93-01399.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 5, 1994.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Sun
v.
U.S.[*]
NO. 93-01399
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Apr 05, 1994
1
Appeal From: N.D.Tex.
2
AFFIRMED IN PART.
*
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2