Case Citator › Mathews-Sheets v. Astrue

Mathews-Sheets v. Astrue

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

Overruled in part
Court
Seventh Circuit
Citation
653 F.3d 560
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
43 of 43
Citing cases (total)
43
Treatment dates
2015
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Mathews-Sheets v. Astrue was overruled in part on the proof needed for an inflation adjustment to Equal Access to Justice Act attorney fees. In Sprinkle v. Colvin, the Seventh Circuit rejected Mathews-Sheets's requirements to prove inflation's effect on the lawyer's own practice and the unavailability of competent counsel at the statutory rate.
More on how this was screened

All 43 flagged citations have been read. Later opinions continued to cite its separate discussion of assigned fee awards.

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.

43 later cases cite Mathews-Sheets v. Astrue; 43 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 Mathews-Sheets 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.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Seventh Circuit overruled Mathews-Sheets's rule requiring case-specific proof of inflation and the lack of competent lawyers available at the statutory fee rate.

    Sprinkle v. Colvin · Seventh Circuit · filed

    So for these reasons, we overrule the standard set forth in Mathews-Sheets and clarify the burden for obtaining a cost- of-living adjustment under the EAJA.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Mathews-Sheets 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