Samuel Jackson v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
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
- Astrue v. RatliffSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Gisbrecht v. BarnhartSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- McGraw v. BarnhartCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- Jeter v. AstrueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
- 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
- Sinkler v. BerryhillCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
- Christian Arnold v. Martin J. O'MalleyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2024
- Abraham M. v. Commissioner of the Social Security AdministrationDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2026
- Adams v. Social Security AdministrationDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2022
- Amy G. v. Commissioner of the Social Security AdministrationDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2026
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.