United States v. Hallmark Construction Company

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that conclusory statement by trial court judge that the government’s case was “far from baseless” did not provide sufficient explanation to support order relating to petition for attorneys’ fees and expenses
• noting that the EAJA does not create a presumption that a prevailing party will recover attorneys’ fees and expenses, but that the government must prove that its position was substantially justified
• stating that the government must show that its position was grounded in (1) a reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged; (2) a reasonable basis in law for the theory propounded; and (3) a reasonable connection between the facts alleged and the legal theory advanced
• where district judge’s merits determination held that government’s position was “arbitrary and capricious,” such lan guage in opinion supported EAJA award
• \the district court must reexamine the legal and factual circumstances of the case from a different perspective than that used at any other stage of the proceeding\
• district court must examine “actual merits of the Government’s litigating position”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).