Evans v. Heath

How courts have described this case

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

• describing second factor of judicial approval of “relief vis-á-vis the merits” and pointing to Buckhannon’s citation of Kokkonen and the latter court’s holding
• court approval of consent decree involves “some appraisal of the merits” inasmuch as court reviews “terms to be sure they are fair and not unlawful”
• “the . . . reasoning in Buckhannon is presumed to apply generally to all fee-shifting statutes that use the prevailing party terminology”
• “We agree with other circuits that the formal label of ‘consent decree’ need not be attached…”
• \[M]ere success in accomplishing a party's objectives is insufficient to be a prevailing party for a fee award.\
• “Whatever flexibility there may be in interpreting fee shifting statutes involving awards against parties other than the United States, such flexibility does not exist as to EAJA applications.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).