28 U.S.C. § 598
Severability
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this chapter and the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances shall not be affected by such invalidation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1993–2003 · leading case: In re Segal
In re Segal (1998)
“this chapter, the division of the court may, if no indictment is brought against such individual pursuant to that investigation, award reimbursement for those reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by that individual during that investigation which would not have been incurred but…”
In Re Oliver L. North (Watson Fee Application) (1994)
“28 U.S.C. § 598 (f)(1). We need consider only the requirement of reasonableness.”
In Re Oliver L. North (Teicher Fee Application) (1993)
“28 U.S.C. § 598 (f)(1). As we have recently noted, the applicant must first demonstrate that he is a “subject” of an independent counsel’s investigation.”
United States v. McDougal (1995)
“Even if the Court were to find that both questioned provisions are unconstitutional, the legislative history of 28 U.S.C. § 598 adopted in 1987 concerning severability states that “[t]his new section makes explicit the common law rule that, in the event a ■ court finds any…”
In Re: Alphonso Michael Espy (2003)
“28 U.S.C. § 598 (f)(1). Accordingly, in order to obtain an attorneys’ fees award under the statute, a petitioner must show that all of the following requirements are met: 1) the petitioner is a “subject” of the investigation; 2) the fees were incurred “during” the investigation;…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.