Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to consider an award of attorney’s fees because the issue of attorney’s fees was not the basis for the appeal, and was not before the appellate court
• finding that application of abuse of discretion standard involves reviewing legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error
• noting that EAJA attorney fees award may have been premature, but declining to make it a question of jurisdictional significance
• finding that application of abuse of discretion standard involves reviewing legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error
• “where the issue of attorney fees is not before the court of appeals ... the district court may consider it”
• “[W]here the issue of attorney fees is not before the court of appeals … the district court may consider it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).