Legal Opinion
Birnell v. Apfel
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided November 24, 1999No. 98-2039-JWLPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LUNGSTRUM, District Judge.
Presently before the court is plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (Doc. 29). Defendant objects to plaintiffs motion, claiming that it is untimely and must therefore be denied (Doc. 31). For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion for EAJA fees is denied.
I. Background
On January 23, 1998, plaintiff filed an action with this court seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying plaintiffs application for…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Shalala v. SchaeferSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Melkonyan v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Bowen v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans AffairsSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Robbins v. BarnhartDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2002