42 U.S.C. § 205
AUTHORIZATION.
“For the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act [probably should be “this title”], there is authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency $13,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, $18,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, $26,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and $33,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: Bordelon v. Barnhart
Bordelon v. Barnhart (2005)
“Next, Bordelon argues that the district court’s judgement fails to comport with the separate document requirement set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and with the remand requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g). Finally, Bordelon contends that the district court abused…”
United States v. Clifton (1992)
“(Most opinions dealing with claims for benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g), will clearly fall within the exception.”
Curtis H. Smith, Agu-Fj-Nqfa v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1981)
“The only real issue before this Court is whether substantial evidence reading the record as a whole supports the Secretary’s final decision terminating Smith’s disability as of November 1977.”
Johnson SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee (1985)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g). We must therefore determine as a threshold matter whether the Secretary’s decision to conduct own motion review based on the condition that the AU award was not supported by substantial evidence was correct.”
Thomas O. Hayes v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (1963)
“Claimant then sought relief from the District Court, 42 U.S.C.A. § 205 (g). That Court affirmed the agency findings with the determination that these findings were supported by substantial evidence.”
Berrios-Velez v. Barnhart (2005)
“Plaintiff Miguel Berrios-Vélez (“Berr-ios”) filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“the Commissioner”) decision to deny him disability benefits, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g) and 405(g). (Docket No.”
Perkins v. Colvin (2016)
“]” 42 U.S.C. § 205 (u)(1)(B), is akin to the authority to exclude a “wife’s affidavit” from evidence in support of a rebuttable presumption of total disability by pneumoconiosis with respect to a living miner’s claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act under 30 U.”
White v. Barnhart (2005)
“Therefore, the action will be remanded under both sentences four and six of 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g). On remand the Commissioner shall consider the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff.”
Atkins v. Califano (1978)
“After review of the record under the narrow scope provided in 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g) which allows us only to determine whether the final decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence, based on the record as a whole, Moon v.”
Hays v. Finch (1969)
“42 U.S.C. § 205 (g). Furthermore, the evidence presented is not probative of any disability under the Social Security Act.”
Towenson Ex Rel. Mickeal v. Apfel (1998)
“The ALJ’s decision is the final decision of the Commissioner and is subject to judicial *1331 review as provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 205 (g). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (e)(3).”
Palomo v. Barnhart (2005)
“Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 205 , Palomo sought review of the Commissioner’s decision in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 205(g) — 5 cases
Wry v. Saul (2021)
Waldrep v. Saul (2021)
Williams v. Kijakazi (2022)
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.