Case Citator › Crawford v. Astrue

Crawford v. Astrue

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
586 F.3d 1142
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
98 of 98
Citing cases (total)
918
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Crawford v. Astrue remains good law: all 98 flagged citations have been read, and none confirms adverse treatment. The reviewed opinions applied Crawford's framework for testing contingent Social Security fee agreements under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), its reasonableness factors, or its approval of satisfying the EAJA refund obligation through an offset.
More on how this was screened

Two courts described its approval of an offset while choosing a direct refund in their own cases. Nearby “abrogated” language concerned Craig v. Secretary of Health & Human Services or Cotter v. Bowen as treated by Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, while Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security followed Crawford and disapproved a different Tenth Circuit observation.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

918 later cases cite Crawford v. Astrue; 98 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Crawford v. Astrue?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 98 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Crawford v. Astrue and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace