Singer Management Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram  ·  2010-08-05  ·  Third Circuit  ·  pin 282 F.3d at 268

“The parties to a consent decree expect and achieve a continuing basis of jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the resolution of their case in the court entering the order.”

Pn v. Seattle School District  ·  2007-01-29  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 282 F.3d at 268

“We doubt that the Supreme Court’s guidance in Buckhannon was intended to be interpreted so restrictively as to require that the words ‘consent decree’ be used explicitly.”

Pn v. Seattle School District  ·  2006-08-14  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 282 F.3d at 268

“We doubt that the Supreme Court’s guidance in Buckhannon was intended to be interpreted so P.N. v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST., NO. 1 9695 restrictively as to require that the words ‘consent decree’ be used explicitly.”

Griggs v. E. I. DuPont  ·  2004-10-19  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 282 F.3d at 268

"The designation of a party as a prevailing party . . . is a legal determination which we review de novo."

WV Highlands Consrv v. Norton  ·  2003-09-03  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 282 F.3d at 268

"The designation of a party as a prevailing party . . . is a legal determina- tion which we review de novo."

Christina A. Ex Rel. Jennifer A. v. Bloomberg  ·  2003-01-13  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  pin 282 F.3d at 268

"We doubt that the Supreme Court's guidance in Buckhannon was intended to be interpreted so restrictively as to require that the words 'consent decree' be used explicitly."