Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

264 F. Supp. 187

Duke v. Gardner

U.S. District Court

Decided January 16, 1967

U.S. District Court · decided 1967-01-16

Relies on Haley v. Gardner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-01-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2005

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

4019671970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MORGAN, Chief Judge.

¶1' The attorney for the plaintiff in the above case has filed a motion for summary judgment and has applied to the Court for allowance of attorney’s fees.

¶2The instant case was brought in this Court pursuant to Title 42, U.S.C.A. § 405(g) and Title 42, U.S.C.A. 406(b) (1) for review of a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Upon the motion of the Secretary, the case was remanded to the Secretary for further consideration.

¶3Upon remand, an award was made in the plaintiff’s favor. Thus, no judgment was made by the Court, and therefore Title 42, U.S.C.A. § 406(b) (1) regarding attorney’s fees in cases where court action results in a favorable decision for the claimant is not applicable.

¶4The proper form of relief for the plaintiff’s attorney is through application to the Secretary for attorney’s fees. Until such remedy is sought, the Court will not rule on the matter. See Haley v. Gardner, 259 F.Supp. 30 (D.C., 1966).

¶5Thus, the plaintiff’s motion is denied.

¶6It is so ordered.

/264/fsupp/187 · .json · Public domain