Pacariem v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• outlining “catalyst” theory from general EAJA caselaw and quoting Heeren v. City of Jamestown, Ky., 39 F.3d 628, 631 (6th Cir.1994) (emphasis added)
• prevailing party status may be proven in one of three ways: (1) show of success on merits; (2) proof as a result of “catalytic effects”; (3) or proof under an “inevitable victory” theory
• discussing, without either adopting or rejecting, Perket v. Secretary of HHS, 905 F.2d 129, 133 (6th Cir.1990), where court held that party was entitled to EAJA fees under “inevitable victory” approach where that party would have prevailed even without favorable change in law
• “Because this Court finds that the appellant has not shown that he is a prevailing party ... it is unnecessary ... to examine whether the appellant has met the other ... requirements”
• \Because this Court finds that the appellant has not shown that he is a prevailing party . . . it is unnecessary . . . to examine whether the appellant has met the other . . . requirements\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).