20 U.S.C. § 2412
Prohibition on use of funds to induce out-of-State relocation of businesses
No funds provided under this chapter shall be used for the purpose of directly providing incentives or inducements to an employer to relocate a business enterprise from one State to another State if such relocation will result in a reduction in the number of jobs available in the State where the business enterprise is located before such incentives or inducements are offered.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: White Buffalo Constr., Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
White Buffalo Constr., Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “In addition, if the parties are unable to settle the issue of attorney’s fees, plaintiff may file, pursuant to the rules of this court, its petition for attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA, 20 U.S.C. § 2412 . No costs. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Bonadonna v. Cooperman, 619 F. Supp. 401 (D.N.J. 1985). “such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily?” 20 U.S.C. § 2412 (5)(B). See, e.g., Rowley, supra, 458 U.”
Powell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (C.D. Ill. 2023). “See 20 U.S.C. §2412 (D)(2)(A) (The amount of fees awarded under this subsection shall be based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of services furnished, except that ….”
Brumbaugh v. Kijakazi (E.D. Mo. 2022). “Under the EAJA, 20 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A), a court must award attorney’s fees to a prevailing Social Security or Supplemental Security Income claimant unless the Commissioner meets the burden of proof that Social Security’s position was substantially justified.”
Shomaker v. Kijakazi (E.D. Mo. 2022). “Under 20 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A), a court must award attorney’s fees to a prevailing Social Security or Supplemental Security Income claimant unless the Commissioner meets the burden of proof that Social Security’s position was substantially justified.”
Martin-Vinerkar v. Kijakazi (E.D. Mo. 2022). “Under 20 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A), a court must award attorney’s fees to a prevailing claimant unless the Commissioner establishes that her position was substantially justified.”
Belen v. Colvin (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “24) On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 20 U.S.C. § 2412 . (Mot. (Dkt. No. 26)) The Commissioner opposed the request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, arguing…”
McDonald v. Colvin (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “80 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 20 U.S.C. § 2412 . (Mot. (Dkt. No. 16)) The motion was rejected for a filing deficiency.”
Holman v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “21) On June 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 20 U.S.C. § 2412 . (Mot. (Dkt. No. 22)) In that motion, Plaintiff seeks an attorneys’ fee award of $9,659.”
Brady v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D.N.Y. 2021). “81 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 20 U.S.C. § 2412 . (Dkt. No. 21). On May 26, 2021, the SSA issued a Notice of Award granting plaintiff $96,231.”
Lewis v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D.N.Y. 2022). “85 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 20 U.S.C. § 2412 . (Dkt. No. 22). In a letter dated February 11, 2022, the Social Security Administration (SSA) advised that plaintiff was due benefits and that SSA had withheld $21,308.”
McCormick v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D.N.Y. 2023). “00 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 20 U.S.C. § 2412 . (Dkt. No. 24). Upon remand, on July 26, 2023, an ALJ issued a fully favorable decision granting plaintiff’s claim in its entirety.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.