Singleton v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
231 F.3d 853 · 2000
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2101 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · United States v. Kubrick · Shalala v. Schaefer · Ardestani v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fashion, resulting in the loss of Medicaid benefits for plaintiffs in certain states. Id. at 854. After the SSA reversed its policy and the court remanded for a determination of retroactive benefits due, the plaintiffs filed an application under the EAJA which arguably failed to allege that the plaintiffs met the net worth requirement and that the United States' position in the district court was not substantially justified. Id. at 855, 857. The court found that a timely EAJA fee application may be supplemented to meet the requirements of § 2412(d)(1)(B), but that district courts may”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Based on the stated purpose of Congress in enacting and extending the EAJA, we conclude that Congress did not intend the EAJA application process to be a high stakes gamble in which one pleading failure, such as neglecting to assert that one’s net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the suit was filed, completely forecloses a litigant’s opportunity for EAJA fees.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Id. at 858. The court in Singleton stated: 23 While it appears clear from the legislative history that Congress intended the filing requirement to be jurisdictional, it is far from apparent that Congress intended that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.