Miceli v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “there is no reason to believe” that the “definition of the legal term ‘prevailing party’ varies across different legal contexts”
• finding a tie, even though one party’s cancellation counterclaim and in- fringement counterclaim proceeded to trial against the other party’s single in- fringement claim
• describing the prevailing party standard and the meaning of that term across attorney’s fees statutes
• “When granting prevailing party status . . . a district court is limited to naming one, and only one, prevailing party.”
• “While the majority of the Supreme Court’s prevailing party jurisprudence … comes from civil rights actions, there is no reason to believe that its definition of the legal term ‘prevailing party’ varies across different legal contexts.”
• “In reviewing a district court’s prevailing party determination, we review the court’s underlying factual findings for clear error but review de novo the legal question of whether those facts suffice to render a party a ‘prevailing party.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).