1:26-cv-10224 Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security
Case Summary
The case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security involves a dispute related to social security benefits. The docket indicates that the civil case has been terminated, suggesting a resolution or dismissal has occurred, though specific details are not provided.
Stage
Active litigation
Timeline
21 events
Coverage
21 articles
Sources
1
Key Issues
- • Social Security benefits
- • Case termination
- • Administrative law
Case Timeline
20 events1:26-cv-10224 Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court granted an extension of time for one party to file a required document. This means the party has more time to submit important paperwork, which can affect the timeline of the case. Extensions help ensure all parties have adequate time to prepare their materials properly.
2:25-cv-01433 Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case of Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security, there was an event related to attorney fees under the legal provision 28 U.S.C. This likely involves the court addressing the payment or approval of fees for the attorney representing one of the parties. Such decisions ensure that legal representatives are fairly compensated for their work on social security cases.
3:26-cv-05306 Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security
A new case titled Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security was filed, separate from the ongoing Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security case. This indicates another individual is challenging a decision made by the Social Security Administration. It matters because it reflects ongoing disputes over Social Security benefits that may impact how such cases are handled.
3:26-cv-05332 Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security
A new case titled Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security with the number 3:26-cv-05332 was filed, separate from the ongoing case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security. This indicates another individual is challenging a decision made by the Social Security Administration. It matters because it adds to the legal scrutiny of Social Security decisions and may influence related cases.
5:26-cv-02915 Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security
The case Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security, with the docket number 5:26-cv-02915, was officially assigned or reassigned to a judge or court. This procedural step ensures that the case has a designated authority to oversee its progress and make legal decisions. Assigning cases properly is essential for organized court management and timely resolution.
5:26-cv-02804 Gutierrez Barragan v. Commissioner of Social Security
The case titled Gutierrez Barragan v. Commissioner of Social Security was assigned or reassigned to a judge or court. This procedural step is important because it determines which judge will oversee the case moving forward. Assigning the case ensures that it can proceed through the legal system efficiently.
3:25-cv-08435 Vizcarra v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court issued an Order to Show Cause related to another case, Vizcarra v. Commissioner of Social Security. This means the court is requiring a party to explain or justify something before proceeding further. It matters because such orders can influence the direction or outcome of the case by addressing key issues early on.
3:26-cv-05380 Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security
A new case titled Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security was filed, separate from the existing Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security case. This indicates ongoing legal challenges related to Social Security decisions. It matters because it shows multiple individuals are seeking judicial review of Social Security rulings.
2:26-cv-00434 Ramsey v. Commissioner of Social Security
The court issued an order setting the schedule for submitting briefs in the case Ramsey v. Commissioner of Social Security. This means both parties must follow specific deadlines to present their arguments and evidence. Establishing a briefing schedule helps the court manage the case efficiently and ensures a timely resolution.
3:26-cv-05121 Henderson v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, a sealed administrative record was filed related to another case, Henderson v. Commissioner of Social Security. This means the court received official documents from the Social Security Administration, but they are kept confidential. Such records are important as they provide the factual basis for reviewing the Social Security decision.
3:26-cv-05013 Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff has submitted their opening brief, which outlines their initial arguments and evidence. This step is crucial as it sets the foundation for the legal dispute and informs the court of the plaintiff's position. The case is related to another case, Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, indicating possible similarities or connected issues.
3:21-cv-05076 Hamblen v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, a related event was noted involving the case Hamblen v. Commissioner of Social Security. This indicates that the court is acknowledging connections or similarities between these cases, which may influence how they are handled or decided.
3:25-cv-06080 Price v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court issued a judgment related to the separate but connected case Price v. Commissioner of Social Security. This indicates the court has made a formal decision resolving key issues, which could impact how similar Social Security claims are handled.
2:21-cv-00943 Wulf v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court issued an order related to attorney fees in a separate but related case, Wulf v. Commissioner of Social Security. This order addresses the request for payment of legal fees, which is a common post-judgment matter in social security disputes. Resolving attorney fees is important because it determines who pays for the legal representation after the case concludes.
5:25-cv-10534 Bassan v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case of Bassan v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court issued an order based on an agreement between the parties involved. This means both sides have come to a mutual understanding or settlement, and the court is formalizing that agreement. Such orders help resolve disputes without further litigation.
9:25-cv-00295 Mauceli v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, a report and recommendations were issued related to the Mauceli v. Commissioner of Social Security case. This document likely contains the judge's analysis and suggested decisions to guide the court's final ruling. Such reports help streamline the decision-making process by providing detailed evaluations of the case facts and legal issues.
2:23-cv-00068 FLEMING v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, a Mandate Notice was issued related to the case Fleming v. Commissioner of Social Security. This notice typically signals the court's final decision or instructions following an appeal, indicating the case's progression or resolution. It matters because it marks a key procedural step that affects the enforcement or further handling of the case.
2:22-cv-01938 VAZQUEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, a related event occurred involving Vazquez v. Commissioner of Social Security. This suggests that the court is considering or referencing another similar case, which may influence the outcome or legal reasoning in Panasiti's case. Such cross-references help ensure consistency in how Social Security claims are handled.
2:25-cv-16246 MELENDEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case Melendez v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff submitted their brief to the court. This document outlines the plaintiff's arguments and evidence supporting their claim. It is a key step in the legal process as it helps the judge understand the plaintiff's position.
2:25-cv-04124 BAMS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security, the defendants submitted their response brief related to another case, BAMS v. Commissioner of Social Security. This filing is part of the ongoing legal process where the defendants present their arguments and responses to the claims made by the plaintiffs. It matters because the response brief helps the court understand the defendants' position and is crucial for the case's progression.
Press Coverage
1:26-cv-10224 Panasiti v. Commissioner of Social Security
Extension of Time to File Document ( 7
2:25-cv-01433 Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security
Attorney Fees ( 28
3:26-cv-05306 Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:26-cv-05332 Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security
5:26-cv-02915 Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security
Case Assigned/Reassigned
5:26-cv-02804 Gutierrez Barragan v. Commissioner of Social Security
Case Assigned/Reassigned
3:25-cv-08435 Vizcarra v. Commissioner of Social Security
Order to Show Cause ( 9
3:26-cv-05380 Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:26-cv-00434 Ramsey v. Commissioner of Social Security
DWC-Social Security Briefing Schedule Order (FORM) ( 9
3:26-cv-05121 Henderson v. Commissioner of Social Security
SEALED Social Security Certified Administrative Record - Answer ( 7
3:26-cv-05013 Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security
Brief - Opening ( 17
3:21-cv-05076 Hamblen v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:25-cv-06080 Price v. Commissioner of Social Security
Judgment by Court ( 19
2:21-cv-00943 Wulf v. Commissioner of Social Security
Order on Motion for Attorney Fees ( 27
5:25-cv-10534 Bassan v. Commissioner of Social Security
Order on Stipulation ( 18
9:25-cv-00295 Mauceli v. Commissioner of Social Security
Report and Recommendations ( 16
2:23-cv-00068 FLEMING v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Mandate Notice
2:22-cv-01938 VAZQUEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
2:25-cv-16246 MELENDEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Plaintiffs Brief ( 12
2:25-cv-04124 BAMS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendants Response Brief ( 15