Sowders v. Gingell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the claimant did not \substantially prevail\ pursuant to CAFRA because \[t]he dismissal without prejudice lacks the required judicial imprimatur to quality as a material alteration of the parties' legal relationship\
• concluding claimants did not \substantially prevail\ and were therefore not entitled to attorney fees under CAFRA because \[t]he dismissal without prejudice lacks the required judicial imprimatur to qualify as a material alteration of the parties' legal relationship\
• finding dismissal without prejudice, in addition to the return of claimant’s property, insufficient to merit an award of fees under CAFRA
• \Finding plain legal prejudice on th[is] basis would necessarily presume that the party resisting voluntary dismissal would have prevailed on the merits if the case continued to a conclusion.\
• finding claimant did not substantially prevail after dismissal without prejudice and return of property
• “Finding plain legal prejudice on [the basis of lost CAFRA fees] would necessarily presume that the party resisting voluntary dismissal would have prevailed on the merits if the case continued to a conclusion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).