Stanley Spencer v. National Labor Relations Board

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “‘the position of the United States,’ for the purposes of the Act, means the arguments relied upon by the government in litigation,” not the underlying action of the government
• indicating that government may refrain from advancing colorable mootness argument if “position” that must be substantially justified is that taken in underlying action
• indicating that government may refrain from advancing colorable mootness argument if \position\ that must be substantially justified is that taken in underlying action
• noting that “the Senate Judiciary Committee considered and rejected an amendment to the bill that would have changed the pertinent language from ‘substantially justified’ to ‘reasonably justified,’ ” S.Rep. No. 253, at 1, 8 (1979
• noting that “the Senate Judiciary Committee considered and rejected an amendment to the bill that would have changed the pertinent language from “substantially justified” to “reasonably justified,” S. Rep. No. 253, at 1, 8 (1979
• courts should award fees in combating unreasonable arguments and deny fees in defeating substantial arguments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).