Salena Glenn v. Comm'r of Social Security

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because there were “five separate bases” for remand, this “string of losses” indicates that the government’s position was not substantially justified
• adopting a single inquiry test and noting that district courts cannot simply compare the number of successful claims to the number of unsuccessful claims in a single appeal
• “The inclusion of three unsuccessful claims in Glenn’s petition for review did not undermine the inevitability of remand.”
• “The inclusion of three unsuccessful claims in Glenn’s petition for review did not undermine the inevitability of remand.”
• “Pierce does not reduce the ‘substantially justified’ standard to a matter of comparing the number of successful claims to unsuccessful claims in a single appeal.”
• \The inclusion of three unsuccessful claims in Glenn's petition for review did not undermine the inevitability of remand.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).