Akers v. Nicholson Briddell v. Nicholson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a remand due to an intervening Court decision did not render the appellant a prevailing party for EAJA purposes
• holding that remand alone does not qualify movant as “prevailing party” because remand “provides only the opportunity for further adjudication”
• holding that a remand due to an intervening Court decision did not render the appellant a prevailing party for EAJA purposes
• concluding that remands based solely on the passage of a statute or intervening caselaw did not confer prevailing-party status
• holding that a remand due to an intervening Court decision did not render the appellant a prevailing party for EAJA purposes
• holding when the parties agreed to a procedural remand, the remand merely provided the opportunity for further adjudication and, thus, did not confer prevailing party status on claimants

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).