- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Valdez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
1:22-cv-00477-EPG (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2023) Valdez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
2 Citing cases
Angela D. S. v. O'Malley
2:23-cv-00888-CDS-NJK (D. Nev. Jul. 18, 2024)1. Purported Obsolescence of Document Preparer Job Plaintiff argues that the Court must follow Valdez v. Comm'r, 2023 WL 2636377 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2023) by finding the document preparer occupation obsolete. However, the Court is not required to follow Valdez and accept, without analysis, Plaintiff's proposition that the document preparer occupation is obsolete.
Penkal v. O'Malley
3:23-cv-00393-CLB (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2024)(Id. (citing Luchsinger v. Kijakazi, No. 22-55599, 2023 WL 3735568, at *1 (9th Cir. May 31, 2023) and Valdez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-CV-00477-EPG, 2023 WL 2636377, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar 24, 2023)).