Cocke v. Foundation for Christian Economics, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that 42 U.S.C. § 402(x) is consistent with the Due Process, Equal Protection, Bill of Attainder, and Ex Post Facto clauses
• holding that Bivens 23 remedies are unavailable for claims arising from the denial of SSDI benefits
• holding that a telephone hearing was sufficient to satisfy Due Process
• holding litigant “cannot pursue a Bivens action for the denial of social security benefits” (citing Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 423–24 (1988))
• noting that the Supreme Court in Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 423-24 (1987) “limit[ed] remedies to those specifically provided for in the Social Security Act”
• explaining that remedies are limited to those expressly provided for in the Social Security Act (citing Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 423–24 (1987)). Montoya v. Colvin, No. 16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (citations omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).