Legal Opinion

Samuel Jackson v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided January 25, 2013No. 12-10255PublishedCited by 68 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

This case concerns the type of judgment for which a district court can grant attorneys’ fees to the attorney of a prevailing social-security claimant under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The dis trict court determined that § 406(b) does not authorize attorneys’ fees when a district court remands a case to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), even when the SSA grants benefits on remand. On appeal, both parties agree that the district court’s construction of § 406(b) is erroneous. 1 We reverse.

I

In 2004, Samuel Jackson filed a claim for…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Astrue v. RatliffSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  2. Gisbrecht v. BarnhartSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. McGraw v. BarnhartCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
  4. Jeter v. AstrueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
  5. Sidney E. Dawson v. Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education and WelfareCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by68 opinions

  1. Sinkler v. BerryhillCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
  2. Christian Arnold v. Martin J. O'MalleyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2024
  3. Abraham M. v. Commissioner of the Social Security AdministrationDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2026
  4. Adams v. Social Security AdministrationDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2022
  5. Amy G. v. Commissioner of the Social Security AdministrationDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2026

63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API