Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 22 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Rosario Gutierrez v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosario Gutierrez v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration Anchor | green | “it is the government's burden to show that its position was 11 substantially justified or that special circumstances exist to make an award unjust.” | 7 |
| 2 | Rosario Gutierrez v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration | green | “an 24 applicant for disability benefits becomes a prevailing party for the purposes of the eaja if the 25 denial of her benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of whether disability benefits 26 ultimately are awarded.” | 6 |
| 3 | Costa v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration | green | “district courts 17 may not apply de facto caps limiting the number of hours attorneys can reasonably expend on 18 'routine' social security cases.” | 3 |
| 4 | Shafer v. Astrue | green | “the relevant question is whether the 15 government's decision to defend on appeal the procedural errors committed by the alj was 16 substantially justified” | 3 |
| 5 | Kimberly Gardner v. Nancy Berryhill | green | “in 14 determining whether a party is eligible for fees under eaja, the district court must determine 15 whether the government's position regarding the specific issue on which the district court based 16 its remand was 'substantially justified'-not whether the alj would ultimate…” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.