28 U.S.C. § 2412 Construction

27 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Broad Avenue Laundry AND Tailoring v. The United States
  693 F.2d 1387· Fed. Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the 'position of the United States' under the Equal Access to Justice Act refers to the government's stance in court litigation, not prior administrative proceedings, and that the government's defense of the Board's decision was substantially justified.
• United States v. 101.80 Acres OF Land
  716 F.2d 714· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 41×
  A condemnee who receives an award of just compensation substantially greater than the government's original deposit is a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and is entitled to costs, fees, and expenses if the government's position was not substantially justifi
• Baker v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  839 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-14 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act's $75/hour limit can be adjusted for cost of living and limited attorney availability, and that these factors require uniform determination across Dallas federal courts. The court also found that the Appeals Council's failure to
• Taylor v. United States
  749 F.2d 171· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that 'final judgment' under the EAJA means a judgment that is final and not appealable, and the thirty-day filing period begins after the time for appeal has lapsed or the government waives further appeal.
• Stratton v. Bowen
  827 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the government's position was not substantially justified, and the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees under the EAJA.
• August Gava Jr. v. The United States
  699 F.2d 1367· Fed. Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority misapplied the 'substantially justified' standard of the Equal Access to Justice Act by not adequately considering the factual basis of the government's position.
• The Comm'rs OF Highways OF the Towns OF Annawan v. United States
  684 F.2d 443· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-27 ·cited 30×
  The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) does not apply to this case because the Commissioners, as governmental subdivisions, do not qualify as 'parties' under the Act, and the EAJA's effective date clause was not met. Furthermore, other statutory and equitable grounds for attorney
• Brinker v. Guiffrida
  798 F.2d 661· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-19 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the government's protracted adherence to a position lacking factual basis, despite a later arguably reasonable litigation stance, did not constitute substantial justification for denying attorney fees under the EAJA.
• Riddle v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  817 F.2d 1238· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-01 ·cited 19×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of attorney fees, finding the Secretary's position substantially justified.
• Essex Electro Eng'rs, Inc. v. The United States
  757 F.2d 247· Fed. Cir.· 1985-02-25 ·cited 16×
  The Claims Court has jurisdiction to award attorney fees under the EAJA for cases commenced after October 1, 1982, but the government's litigation position was substantially justified, warranting denial of the fee application.
• United States upon the relation & for the Use of the Tenn. Valley Auth. v. AN Easement & Right-Of-Way Containing 0.1 Acres
  452 F.2d 729· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-09 ·cited 14×
  The 1966 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 does not authorize taxation of costs against the United States in eminent domain proceedings.
• Cassata v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.
  445 F.2d 122· 7th Cir.· 1971-06-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in assessing attorneys' fees against FSLIC due to sovereign immunity, as 28 U.S.C. § 2412 specifically excludes such fees from recoverable costs against the United States.
• Hafner v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  972 F.2d 249· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-11 ·cited 12×
  When a judicial remand order in Social Security disability cases contemplates further administrative proceedings to determine benefit eligibility, the district court retains discretion to enter a final judgment for EAJA purposes after those proceedings conclude.
• Auke BAY Concerned Citizen's Advisory Council v. Marsh
  779 F.2d 1391· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 10×
  An application for attorney fees under the EAJA is timely if filed no more than 30 days after final judgment and the applicant can show they are a prevailing party eligible for an award.
• Okla. Aerotronics, Inc. v. United States
  943 F.2d 1344· D.C. Cir.· 1991-09-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that an extraordinary delay in awarding attorney fees can be a 'special factor' justifying an increase in the fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• Full Gospel Portland Church v. Thornburgh
  927 F.2d 628· D.C. Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the term "civil action" in the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) can encompass administrative proceedings that are necessary to effectuate a court's judgment and vindicate a party's rights.
• Hong-Yee Chiu v. The United States
  948 F.2d 711· Fed. Cir.· 1991-10-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in determining the government's position was not substantially justified, entitling the plaintiff to attorney fees. However, the court reversed the calculation of the fee award, finding that cost-of-living adjustme
• Jabaay v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  920 F.2d 472· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a claimant must file an Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) petition within thirty days of the final judgment in the underlying Social Security case, and that the claimant's petition was untimely.
• Cohen v. Bowen
  837 F.2d 582· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's position was substantially justified, even if not ultimately prevailing, and thus attorney fees under the EAJA were not warranted.
• Love v. Reilly
  924 F.2d 1492· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Association failed to demonstrate that the attorney possessed a specialized skill or that such skill was necessary for the litigation, thus precluding an award of fees above the statutory cap.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Farmworker Orgs. v. Marshall
  628 F.2d 23· D.C. Cir.· 1979-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that attorneys' fees cannot be awarded from federal grant funds, even if a small portion is set aside after expenditure, as the funds retain their federal character.
• Warner v. Bowen
  648 F. Supp. 1409· S.D. Fla.· 1986-12-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's renewed motion for attorney's fees under the EAJA was timely because the final judgment was entered on August 13, 1986, and the government's administrative determination was not substantially justified.
• Marquez v. Bowen
  682 F. Supp. 48· S.D. Fla.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, with an adjusted hourly rate based on cost-of-living increases and a reduced award for time spent on the fee application itself.
• Quagliozzi v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-10-25
  The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees, costs, and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act because she prevailed in a non-tort suit against the United States, the government's position was not substantially justified, and her application was timel
• Rodriguez-Claudio v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-24
  The court held that while the plaintiff is eligible for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the requested amount was not fully reasonable and was therefore reduced based on adjusted hourly rates.
• Dewees, II v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-05-04
  The court held that the plaintiff is eligible for EAJA fees and awarded a modified amount based on reasonable market rates and hours, reducing the paralegal rate and slightly adjusting hours.