Citation network
Pierce Vs. Underwood
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 27, 1988
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 552 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Pierce v. UnderwoodSearch
-
U.S. 552 (1988) Pierce v. UnderwoodSearch
-
spectrum of litigation, and are little more than routine reasons why market rates are what they are. Pennsylvania v. DelawareSearch
-
a conflict in the Courts of Appeals over important questions concerning the interpretation of the EAJA. Compare Dubose v. PierceSearch
-
successfully challenged the Secretary's decision in lawsuits filed in nine Federal District Courts. See Underwood v. PierceSearch
-
and writ of mandamus requiring the Secretary to disburse the accumulated operating subsidy fund. See Underwood v. HillsSearch
-
DC 1976). We stayed the District Page 487 U. S. 556 Court's judgment pending appeal. Sub nom. Hills v. CooperativeSearch
-
similarly stayed, pending appeal, one of the nine other District Court judgments against the Secretary. See Dubose v. HarrisSearch
-
F.R.D. 582, 584 (Conn.1979). Two of those other judgments were affirmed by Courts of Appeals, see Ross v. CommunitySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Services, Inc., 544 F.2d 514 (CA4 1976), and Abrams v. HillsSearch
-
F.2d 1062 (CA9 1976), vacated sub nom. Pierce v. RossSearch
-
consolidated the cases and granted the Secretary's petitions for writs of certiorari to review those decisions, Harris v. RossSearch
-
other Courts of Appeals have treated it as involving the first. See Battles Farm Co. v. PierceSearch
-
Dubose v. PierceSearch
-
CurtissWright Corp. v. GeneralSearch
-
Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
Quaker Chair Corp. v. LittonSearch
-
Reygo Pacific Corp. v. JohnstonSearch
-
SEC v. MusellaSearch
-
Smith v. MontgomerySearch
-
the Ninth Circuit and the vast majority of other Courts of Appeals that have addressed this issue. See United States v. YoffeSearch
-
Citizens Council of Delaware County v. BrinegarSearch
-
Anderson v. HecklerSearch
-
Hanover Building Materials, Inc. v. GuiffridaSearch
-
Trident Marine Construction, Inc. v. DistrictSearch
-
Ramos v. HaigSearch
-
Foster v. TourtellotteSearch
-
v. 2,116 Boxes of Boned Beef, 726 F.2d 1481, 1486-1487 (CA10), cert. denied sub nom. Jarboe-Lackey Feedlots, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Ashburn v. UnitedSearch
-
Report suggested. Such a reenactment, of course, generally includes the settled judicial interpretation. Lorillard v. PonsSearch
-
Foley Construction Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Broad Avenue Laundry and Tailoring v. UnitedSearch
-
than reasonableness. Spencer v. NLRBSearch
-
emphasis added). Moreover, the Government argued that its position was supported by the decision in Pennsylvania v. LynnSearch
-
we affirm the Ninth Circuit's holding that the District Judge did not abuse his discretion when he found it was not. v. TheSearch
-
s fees award was proper. Here it is well established that the abuse-of-discretion standard applies. See Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. DelawareSearch
-
This issue is quite different from the question of contingent fee enhancement that we faced last Term in Pennsylvania v. DelawareSearch
-
it would have expected review de novo, rather than review for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSearch
-
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. GeneralSearch
-
which is the sort of issue presented here, to be given abuse-of-discretion review. See, e.g., Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
National Hockey League v. MetropolitanSearch
-
a standard higher than mere reasonableness, and the Sixth Circuit is considering the question en banc. See Riddle v. SecretarySearch
-
Lee v. JohnsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial