Gladstein v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that EAJA fees are awarded to the prevailing plaintiff, not his counsel, in accordance with the specific language of the EAJA
• recognizing that EAJA fees are awarded to the prevailing plaintiff, not his counsel, in accordance with the specific language of the EAJA
• holding that such fee-shifting provisions “were enacted' for the benefit of the persons the statutes are designed to reach” and not “for the ■ benefit of the Bar”
• noting that federal fee statutes were not “enacted for the benefit of the Bar” but “for the benefit of the persons the statutes are designed to reach”
• holding -that granting attorneys’ fees directly to attorneys would disrupt the attorney-client relationship and would result in successive and highly burdensome litigation
• stating that “the attorney” is not “a recognized applicant for fees and expenses” under the Equal Access to Justice Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).