Greenberg v. Colvin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that § 406(b) fees are available in the class action context
• clarifying that § 406(b) “does not demand a contingent agreement”
• “The statute . . . does not demand a contingent agreement . . . courts have held that fees under § 406(b
• “[P]redominance is not negated by the fact that each class member will be entitled to a different damages figure in the amount their [benefits] were improperly reduced.”
• “The statute . . . does not demand a contingent agreement . . . courts have held that fees under § 406(b) may be available where there is no contingency arrangement between the claimant and his counsel.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).