Manning v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under the plain language of the EAJA, the government can offset attorney’s fees by the social-security claimant’s debt
• concluding that the EAJA makes it clear that certain prevailing parties, not their attorneys, may recover attorney’s fees when the Government’s action was not substantially justified
• concluding that the EAJA makes it clear that certain prevailing parties, not their attorneys, may recover attorney’s fees when the Government’s action was not substantially justified
• concluding “the legislative history for the EAJA also makes it clear that certain prevailing parties, and not their attorneys, may recover attorney’s fees when the government’s action was not substantially justified”
• declining to address lien issue where issue was not adequately raised or briefed in district court and district court did not rule on issue
• noting only client has standing to apply for fees under EAJS

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).