Paul D. Halverson,appellants v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that government's position was not \substantially justified\ under the EAJA
• noting that the absence of contrary case law does not lead to the conclusion that the government’s position is substantially justified
• applying a provision of the EAJA that denies attorney’s fees to a prevailing party if the position of the United States was “substantially justified”
• interpreting “substantially justified” in a provision of the Equal Access to Justice Act phrased similarly to Rule 16(f)(2)
• despite absence of interpretive case law, government not substantially justified because its statutory interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute
• despite absence of interpretive case law, government not substantially justified because its statutory interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).