Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mabus, No. 1:25-cv-00047 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 13, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 602 Determining entitlement to attorney fees under EAJA8 citing cases
  • Mabus, No. 1:25-cv-00047 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 13, 2025).
    The database is available at Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUURN300SA0?amp%%20%%2020253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&in clude_graphs=true (last visited No…
  • Robbins v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:24-cv-00140 (S.D. Miss. June 4, 2025).
    “Substantially justified” Even though the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees was timely filed, and he is a prevailing party under the EAJA, “[]he is not entitled to attorney fees if the position of the United States was ‘substantially ju…
  • Watts v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:23-cv-00182 (S.D. Miss. June 4, 2025).
    “Substantially justified” Even though the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees was timely filed, and she is a prevailing party under the EAJA, “she is not entitled to attorney fees if the position of the United States was ‘substantially ju…
  • Hall v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:20-cv-00128 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 29, 2023).
    “Substantially justified” Even though the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s fees was timely filed, and they are a prevailing party under the EAJA, they are “not entitled to attorney fees if the position of the United States was ‘substantia…
  • Valliere v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:21-cv-00068 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 29, 2023).
    “Substantially justified” Even though the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ fees was timely filed, and he is a prevailing party under the EAJA, “[he] is not entitled to attorney fees if the position of the United States was ‘substantially…
  • Lopresto v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-cv-00150 (S.D. Miss. June 28, 2023).
    “Substantially justified” Even though the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s fees was timely filed, and she is a prevailing party under the EAJA, “she is not entitled to attorney fees if the position of the United States was ‘substantially…
  • Thomas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:20-cv-00123 (S.D. Miss. June 28, 2023).
    “Substantially justified” Even though the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s fees was timely filed, and she is a prevailing party under the EAJA, “she is not entitled to attorney fees if the position of the United States was ‘substantially…
  • Edwards v. Barnhart, 214 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Tex. 2002).published
    Because attorney's fees and postage charges are subsumed by fees and other expenses, Defendant has conceded that its position was not substantially justified, and no special circumstances are evident that would make a fee award unjust, the…
At page 599 Determining prevailing party status under EAJA12 citing cases7 listed here
  • Waites v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:23-cv-01634 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2025).
    Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), a court must award attorneys’ fees and expenses if: (1) the claimant is a “prevailing party,” (2) the position of the United States was not “substantially justified,” and (3) there are no spe…
  • Highberg v. O'Malley, No. 6:24-cv-00018 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2024).
    Under the EAJA, a court must award attorney fees and expenses if: (1) the claimant is a “prevailing party;” (2) the position of the United States was not “substantially justified;” and (3) there are no special circumstances that make an aw…
  • Palmer v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:19-cv-00215-RBF (W.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2022).
    In a proceeding for judicial review of an agency action, such as the instant case, the EAJA mandates the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs to a party prevailing against the United States, “unless the court finds that the…
  • Gate Guard Servs. L.P. v. Perez, 14 F. Supp. 3d 825 (S.D. Tex. 2014).published
    “As a threshold matter, a plaintiff is a ‘prevailing party’ under the EAJA ‘if he succeeds on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit he sought in bringing suit.’ ” Davidson v. Veneman, 317 F.3d 503, 506 (5th…
  • Davidson v. Veneman, 317 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2003).published
    Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 599-600 (5th Cir.2001).
  • McQueen v. Massanari, No. 01-30150 (5th Cir. Sept. 7, 2001).unpublished
    Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2001).
  • Saucier v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:20-cv-02373 (E.D. La. June 14, 2022).
    See Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2001).
At page 600 Determining prevailing party status under EAJA12 citing casesrelying, in part, on Huey, Hanrahan, and Hewitt to conclude that a plaintiff who “did not obtain anything from Appel-lee on the merits of her claims,” but achieved only a procedural victory as “relief,” was not a “prevailing party” entitled to fees under the EAJA1 citing court put it this way · 6 listed here
  • Primo v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:17-cv-06875 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2024).
    Prevailing Party Although a sentence six remand, by itself, is not a sufficient basis for a litigant to claim “prevailing party” status, e.g., Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 2001), a favorable result in subsequent administrativ…
  • DaSilva v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 599 F. App'x 535 (5th Cir. 2014).unpublished 3 cites
    The EAJA allows a party who prevails in litigation against the government to recover attorneys fees. 6 Under § 2412(d) of the EAJA, the district court “shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses…
  • Alonso-Velez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 796 F. Supp. 2d 300 (D.P.R. 2011).published
    See, e.g., Marshall v. Commissioner of Social Security, 444 F.3d 837, 840-42 (6th Cir.2006); Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.2001).
  • Ronald E. Marshall v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 444 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 2006).published 2 cites
    Although a sentence six remand, by itself, is not a sufficient basis for a litigant to claim “prevailing party” status, e.g., Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.2001), the result of subsequent administrative proceedings is sufficien…
  • Nat'l Fed'n of Repub. Assemblies v. United States, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (S.D. Ala. 2003).published
    See Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.2001); Kerin v. United States Postal Service, 218 F.3d 185 , 189 n. 1 (2nd Cir.2000); Jacobs v. Schiffer, 204 F.3d 259, 263 (D.C.Cir.2000); United States v. 22249 Dolorosa Street, 190 F.3d 977,…
  • Branstad v. Veneman, 232 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Iowa 2002).published
    (relying, in part, on Huey, Hanrahan, and Hewitt to conclude that a plaintiff who “did not obtain anything from Appel-lee on the merits of her claims,” but achieved only a procedural victory as “relief,” was not a “preva…)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Sims
v.
Apfel
98-60126.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 9, 1998.
Unpublished opinion
238 F.3d 597
2001 WL 25694
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 79%
Citer courts: W.D. Louisiana (1)

162 F.3d 1160

Sims
v.
Apfel

NO. 98-60126
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

November 06, 1998

Appeal From: N.D.Miss. , No.297CV94B

1

Affirmed.