Cases

151 F.Supp.2d 1277 (2001) Marvin RAINS, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 99-4018-RDR. United States District Court, D. Kansas. February 21, 2001. *1278 Steven M. Tilton, Tilton & Tilton, LLP, Topeka, KS, for plaintiff. D. Brad Bailey, Office of U.S. Atty., Topeka, KS, for def

Contracts; Contracts Act, 41 U.S.C. § 6305, Prohibition of assignment of contracts with the federal government. OPINION ERIC G. BRUGGINK, Judge This case concerns a contract to design, build, and then lease to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) an office building in Houma, Louisiana. The General Services Administrat

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 09-153, 10-541C, & 11-486C (consolidated) (Filed: August 28, 2014) ********************** AMERICAN GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES and HOUMA SSA, LLC, Contracts; Contracts Act, 41 Plaintiffs, U.S.C. § 6305, Prohibition of assignment of contracts with the v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Scott Marshall v. Civil No. 13-cv-363-PB Opinion No. 2014 DNH 180 Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Scott Marshall seeks judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denyin

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING COBB, District Judge. The plaintiff, Arnold D. Rains, has brought this action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) denying his claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under Sections 216(i) and 223 of Title II

Loftus v. SSA CV-96-266-B 08/20/97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Margaret Loftus v. Civil No. 96-266-B Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner, Social Security Administration O R D E R Margaret Loftus challenges a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her application for disab

221 F.Supp.2d 1020 (2002) Larry ROARK, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 00-4084-CV-C-REL-SSA. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division. August 27, 2002. *1021 Dewey Crepeau, Columbia, MO, for plaintiff. David Detar Newbert, Assistant United States Attorney

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge: An Social Security Administration (SSA) administrative law judge (ALJ) denied Delois Nichols’ claim for supplemental security income benefits (SSI), finding she was not disabled. Nichols has appealed the decision. Both Nichols and the Commissioner of Social Security have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2217 FLAGLER PLACE, LLC Plaintiff, v. Civ. Action No. 21-399 TOORAK CAPITAL PARTNERS, et (EGS) al., Defendants. Plaintiff 2217 Flagler Place, LLC (“Flagler”) brings this lawsuit against Defendants Toorak Capital Partners, LLC (“Toorak”) and Flatiron Realty Capital LLC (“Flatiron”) alleging: (1) V

993 F.Supp. 1265 (1997) Dale E. MEEKS, [SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX], Plaintiff, v. Kenneth APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 96-6111-CV-SJ-BC-SSA. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, St. Joseph Division. December 30, 1997. *1266 *1267 Allan D. Seidel, Miller, Seidel, Havens

554 F.3d 352 (2008) Kathy J. BROWNAWELL, Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY. No. 07-4405. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 2, 2008. Filed December 9, 2008. *354 Robert E. Rains, Esq., Disability Law Clinic, Carlisle, PA, for Appellan

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JEFFREY COLE, United States Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff, Tallevette Mueller, seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner (“Commissioner”) of the Social Security Administration (“Agency”) denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2). Ms. Mueller asks the court to reverse

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PUGET SOUNDKEEPER No. 21-35881 ALLIANCE, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 3:17-cv-05016- BHS v. PORT OF TACOMA; SSA OPINION TERMINALS LLC; SSA TERMINALS (TACOMA), LLC, Defendants-Appellees, and APM TERMINALS TACOMA LLC; DON ESTERBROOK, Defendants. PUGET SOUNDKE

gm FELEB JU&‘»§ 29 2089 Clerk, U.S. District and UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) Bankruptcy Coutts Julia Miller, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ,. ) 09 11/8 Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM GPINION Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se complaint. The application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff received

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 24-914 C (Filed Under Seal: September 30, 2024) Reissued: October 24, 2024 ∗ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ACUITY EDGE, INC., * * Plaintiff, * * v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, United States District Judge Introduction Plaintiff Felicia Ring (“Ms. Ring”) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act. She seeks review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”),1 who denied her appli

2016 WI 59 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2014AP157 COMPLETE TITLE: Dennis D. Dufour, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, v. Progressive Classic Insurance Company and Milwaukee Painters Local Union 781 Health Fund,

92 S.W.3d 380 (2002) Steve VINSON v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, et al. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Jackson. December 30, 2002. *381 Regina Morrison Newman, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Steve Vinson. *382 Mark W. Raines, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellees, United Parcel Service, et al.

Dooley, J., ¶ 44. concurring in part and dissenting in part. In this case, the majority reverses and remands the prospective child support order for a guideline deviation decision. Although I do not agree with the analysis that reached that conclusion, as discussed below, my first response is that there already was a deviation decision by the magistrate, and father failed to appeal it to the super

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) HAMPTON DELLINGER ) in his personal capacity and ) in his official capacity as ) Special Counsel of the ) Office of Special Counsel, ) ) Plaintiff, )