Bituminous Coal Operators' Ass'n v. Kleppe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in determining whether the Government’s position was substantially justified “it is appropriate to consider the reasonable overall objectives of the [G]ov-ernment and the extent to which the alleged governmental misconduct departed from them”
• stating that substantial justification “focuses ... on the reasonableness of [the government’s] position in bringing about or continuing the litigation”
• cautioning courts that the EAJA was not designed to “chill the government’s right to litigate.”
• affirming the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees, even though plaintiffs had prevailed on two issues, because the Government’s overall position was “substantially justified”
• defining the agency’s position by noting that the “overall position of the Army Corps of Engineers was its decision to grant a permit for construction of a pipeline”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).