green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.0 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
McDonald v. Washington
the statute is meant to discourage the federal government from using its superior litigating resources unreasonably - it is in this respect an 'anti-bully' law
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
James Angus McDonald Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Robert Washington, ph.d., United States of America, Appellants/cross-Appellees. Alma Streicher, Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Robert Washington, ph.d., United States of America, Appellants/cross-Appellees. Alma Streicher, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Robert Washington, ph.d., United States of America, Appellees/cross-Appellants. James Angus McDonald Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Robert Washington, ph.d., United States of America, Appellees/cross-Appellants
the statute is meant to discourage the federal government from using its superior litigating resources unreasonably--it is in this respect an 'anti-bully' law
cited
Cited "see"
Mohammed v. Reno
See Dubose v. Pierce, 761 F.2d 913, 920 (2d Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds, 487 U.S. 1229 , 108 S.Ct. 2890 , 101 L.Ed.2d 924 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Mohammed v. Reno
See Dubose v. Pierce, 761 F.2d 913, 920 (2d Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds, 487 U.S. 1229 , 108 S.Ct. 2890 , 101 L.Ed.2d 924 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Federal Election Commission v. Political Contributions Data, Inc.
(2×)
See Dubose v. Pierce. 761 F.2d 913, 918 (2d Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds, 487 U.S. 1229 , 108 S.Ct. 2890 , 101 L.Ed.2d 924 (1988). 1 I think the district court's findings easily withstand review for abuse of discretion.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Buchanan v. United States
See also Russell v. Heckler, 814 F.2d 148, 155 (3d Cir.1987), vacated on other grounds, 487 U.S. 1229 , 108 S.Ct. 2891 , 101 L.Ed.2d 925 (1988) (where the sole basis for the government’s opposition to the fee petition is the alleged substantial justification of the government’s position in the underlying proceedings, the petitioner will “almost always, if not always,” be entitled to fees for litigation over the EAJA fee petition if she is entitled to fees for the underlying action); Cinciarelli v. Reagan, 729 F.2d 801, 810 (D.C.Cir.1984) (awarding fees for fees in EAJA actions avoids a…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Price
v.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America
v.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America
No. 86-1055.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 30, 1988.
487 U.S. 1229
Published
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (2)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Communications Workers v. Beck, ante, p. 735.