Thompson v. Soc. Sec. Bd., 154 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1946). · Go Syfert
Search
Thompson v. Soc. Sec. Bd., 154 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1946). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mary H. Rosewall v. Marion Folsom, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (ca7, 1957-01-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1946 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1946 1986 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited "see" Mary H. Rosewall v. Marion Folsom, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (2×)
7th Cir. · 1957 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thompson v. Social Security Board, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 27 , 154 F.2d 204 .
Thompson
v.
Social Security Board
9099.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Mar 18, 1946.
154 F.2d 204
Mr. W. P. Cannady, of Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Hubert H. Margolies, Attorney, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., with whom Assistant Attorney General, John F. Sonnett and Messrs. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, and Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee., Messrs. Charles B. Murray and Daniel B. Maher, Assistant United States Attorneys, both of Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellee.
Edgerton, Wilbur K. Miller and Prettyman, Associate Justices.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued in the District Court to review a decision of the Social Security Board. This appeal is from a summary judgment for the Board.

Appellant had filed with the Board a claim to insurance benefits as the widow of a wage-earner. The Board had found, on conflicting evidence, that appellant was not “living with” the wage-earner at the time of his death and therefore was not entitled to benefits. 53 Stat. 1365, § 202(e) (1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(e) (1), 53 Stat. 1378, § 209(n), 42 U.S.C.A. § 409(n). The Board filed in the District Court a certified copy of the record, including the evidence on which the Board’s findings and judgment were based. The proceedings before the court were a review of that record, not a trial de novo. Since the evidence in support of the Board’s findings of fact was substantial, those findings were conclusive. 53 Stat. 1370, § 205(g), 42 U.S. C. A. § 405(g). The District Court was therefore right in entering summary judgment.

Affirmed.