Adams v. Securities & Exchange Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a “case-specific approach [] constitutes” the type of “trap” that Congress intended the courts to avoid when interpreting EAJA, and stating that it “would pointlessly leave considerable uncertainty about when EAJA’s 30 day deadline would expire and result in an unworkable rule”
• adopting a bright-line presumption of appealability where it was ambiguous because the dismissal did not specify with or without prejudice
• “Realization of [the purpose of EAJA] necessarily requires an interpretation of the procedural requirements of EAJA in a manner that is not unduly confusing or misleading so that they are not a ‘trap for the unwary.’ ”
• “That Congress adopted the McDonald approach for applications in judicial proceedings under § 2412 suggests that Congress also agreed with the court’s underlying reason- ing . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).