Retailing Enterprises, LLC v. the Retail Property Trust

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[b]e-fore August 23, the court had not ordered the Energy Department to turn over any documents; after the August 23, the Energy department still had no obligation to do so”
• holding that a stipulation and order dismissing the case did not constitute a judgment on the merits or meaningfully alter the legal relationship between the parties because the court did not decide any contested issues
• explaining that plaintiff is eligible for fees if it is “awarded some relief by a court,” such as “a judgment on the merits”
• holding similar status reports did not constitute relief ordered by a court
• confirming that Buckhan-non applied to FOIA cases and that to be eligible for • attorneys’ fee award, party must have been “awarded some relief by [a] court,” either in judgment on merits or in court-ordered consent decree
• confirming that Buckhannon applied to Freedom of Information Act cases and that to be eligible for attorneys’ fee award party must have been “awarded some relief by [a] court,” either in judgment on merits or in court-ordered consent decree

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).