Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Arthur O. BROWN, Jr., Appellant, v. Caspar WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee, 1975 — 520 F.2d 1010 · caselaw · US
General
Arthur O. BROWN, Jr., Appellant, v. Caspar WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee
520 F.2d 1010·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1975
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Arthur O. BROWN, Jr., Appellant, v. Caspar WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee.
No. 74-1955.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 1975.
Decided Sept. 12, 1975.
James W. Sherby, The Legal Aid Society, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Jean C. Hamilton, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the final judgment of the district court (Judge Harper) sustaining the motion of the Secretary for summary judgment affirming the Secretary’s final decision that plaintiff Brown has not met the requirements for disability benefits. The trial court in a well-reasoned opinion, published at 385 F.Supp. 780 (E.D.Mo.1974), has demonstrated that the plaintiff had a full and fair evidentiary hearing at the administrative level, and that the Secretary’s determination that plaintiff is not entitled to disability benefits is supported by substantial evidence.
The judgment of dismissal is affirmed upon the basis of Judge Harper’s reported opinion.