Marvin Ford v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 97-55948. D.C. No. Cv-96-05452-Ghk, 145 F.3d 1337 (9th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Marvin Ford v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 97-55948. D.C. No. Cv-96-05452-Ghk, 145 F.3d 1337 (9th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Scripsamerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLC (cacd, 2014-11-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Scripsamerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLC
C.D. Cal. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“In proceedings in rem or quasi in rem, the forum first assuming custody of the property at issue has exclusive jurisdiction to proceed.” 40235 Washington Street Corp. v. Lusardi, 976 F.2d 587, 589 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 819 , 96 S.Ct. 1236 , and Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 411 , 84 S.Ct. 1579 , 12 L.Ed.2d 409 (1964)); see Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Ha, 145 F.3d 1337 , 1998 WL 340118, *1 (9th Cir. June 1, 1998) (Unpub.Disp.) ("Although the existence of a case in one forum does not generally defeat jurisdiction in another, there is a firmly-…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Estate of Short ex rel. Short v. Brookville Crossing 4060 LLC
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Baker, 793 N.E.2d at 1205 (plaintiff, while at the counter of the business, “suddenly fell backward” in which his “head hit the floor, and he was knocked unconscious and began having convulsions”); see also Gingeleskie v. Westin Hotel, et al., 145 F.3d 1337 , 1998 WL 279393 at *2 (9th Cir.1998) (holding question of fact existed regarding whether hotel took reasonable steps under § 314A to get a sick man to a hospital when the employee called a cab rather than an ambulance); Southland Corp. v. Griffith, 332 Md. 704 , 633 A.2d 84, 91-92 (1993) (holding business had a duty to provide…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." The Estate of K. David Short by Judith Y. Short, Personal Representative v. Brookville Crossing 4060 LLC d/b/a Baymont Inns & Suites and MPH Hotels, Inc. d/b/a Baymont Inns & Suites
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Baker, 793 N.E.2d at 1205 (plaintiff, while at the counter of the business, “suddenly fell backward” in which his “head hit the floor, and he was knocked unconscious and began having convulsions”); see also Gingeleskie v. Westin 16 Hotel, et al., 145 F.3d 1337 , 1998 WL 279393 at *2 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding question of fact existed regarding whether hotel took reasonable steps under § 314A to get a sick man to a hospital when the employee called a cab rather than an ambulance); Southland Corp. v. Griffith, 332 Md. 704 , 633 A.2d 84, 91-92 (1993) (holding business had a duty to pro…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rasnick v. KRISHNA HOSPITALITY, INC.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Bradley Center, Inc., supra at 201-202 (concluding that Court of Appeals properly imposed duty, which was set forth in Restatement, Torts, 2d, § 315, noting that such a duty did not “create! ] a new tort,” but applied traditional tort principles of negligence to facts of the case) (punctuation omitted). 14 Rasnick cites Gingeleskie v. Westin Hotel Co., 145 F3d 1337 (9th Cir. 1998) (unpublished opinion); Sneider v. Hyatt Corp., 390 FSupp. 976 (N.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marvin Ford
v.
Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 97-55948. D.C. No. Cv-96-05452-Ghk
1337.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 12, 1998.
145 F.3d 1337
Unpublished

145 F.3d 1337

56 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 725

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Marvin FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Kenneth S. APFEL,[*] Commissioner of Social
Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97-55948.
D.C. No. CV-96-05452-GHK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 1998***.
Decided June 12, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding.

Before REINHARDT, THOMPSON, AND LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[**]

2

Marvin Ford appeals the district court's order denying his application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), following the district court's remand to the Commissioner of Ford's action seeking supplemental security income pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.

3

We review for abuse of discretion the decision whether to award fees under EAJA. See Sampson v. Chater, 103 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1996). Under EAJA, a court shall award attorney's fees to a prevailing party "unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).[1]

4

Here, the district court reversed the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision to deny benefits because the ALJ failed to mention the uncontradicted opinion of Ford's treating physician, who concluded that Ford was disabled due to a seizure disorder and alcohol abuse. Because of the importance of this opinion and the ALJ's failure to set forth any reasons for rejecting it, the Commissioner's decision to oppose Ford's request for a remand was not substantially justified. See Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 569-70 (9th Cir.1995).

5

Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment and remand for the district court to determine the appropriate amount of attorney's fees and other expenses under EAJA.

6

REVERSED and REMANDED.

*

Kenneth S. Apfel is substituted for Shirley S. Chater pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(1)

**

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1

Ford is a prevailing party under EAJA due to his success in securing a remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-01, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993); Sampson v. Chater, 103 F.3d 918, 921 n. 2 (9th Cir.1996)