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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 90 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 Culbertson v. Berryhill.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Culbertson v. Berryhill Anchor | green | “the 25 cap applies only to fees for representation before the court, not the agency.” | 47 |
| 2 | Mcguire v. Sullivan | green | “although the contingency agreement should be given significant weight in fixing a fee, the district court must independently assess the reasonableness of its terms.” | 23 |
| 3 | Coppett v. Barnhart | green | “the 'best indicator of the reasonableness of a contingency fee in a social security case is the contingency percentage actually negotiated between the attorney and client . . . .” | 20 |
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.