Legal Opinion

Terese F. v. Saul

District Court, E.D. Illinois

Decided July 17, 2019No. 17 C 4784PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Jeffrey Cole, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff's counsel has moved for approval of attorney's fees to be paid out of the plaintiff's past-due benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

*875The Commissioner agreed to remand this case upon initial review by the district court prior to any briefing. [Dkt. ##13, 14]. On remand from this court, an Administrative Law Judge for the Social Security Administration determined that plaintiff was disabled and entitled to benefits, including $51,379.00 in past-due benefits. Plaintiff and her counsel had a contingency fee agreement whereby she would pay…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Gisbrecht v. BarnhartSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Lochner v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  4. Lee v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Morton M. Hill, Jr. v. Norfolk and Western Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Houshoulder v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2024
  2. Ternet v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API