Citation network
Scarborough Vs. Principi
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 03, 2004
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2003 Scarborough V. PrincipiSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Scarborough V. PrincipiSearch
-
the 30-day time limit. This Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case in light of Edelman v. LynchburgSearch
-
application are detailed in the same statutory provision. The Federal Circuit also distinguished the holding in Becker v. MontgomerySearch
-
s adjudicatory authority. Kontrick v. RyanSearch
-
the doctrine well before the Federal Rules became effective, see, e.g., New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. v. KinneySearch
-
Irwin v. DepartmentSearch
-
of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89 , 95, and Franconia Associates v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and Breyer, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. Scarborough v. PrincipiSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Scarborough V. PrincipiSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-1657 Randall C. Scarborough, Petitioner V. AnthonySearch
-
from the general rule that each party to a lawsuit pays his or her own legal fees. See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. WildernessSearch
-
s fee application on the ground asserted by the Government. Scarborough v. WestSearch
-
citing Dunn v. UnitedSearch
-
applicant need not submit within 30 days an itemized statement accounting for the amount sought), and Singleton v. ApfelSearch
-
s position was not substantially justified)). The Federal Circuit also distinguished its own decision in Bazalo v. WestSearch
-
s decision in Edelman v. LynchburgSearch
-
application are detailed in the same statutory provision. 319 F. 3d, at 1353. The majority also distinguished Becker v. MontgomerySearch
-
d)(1)(A) indicates and courts uniformly have recognized, must be shouldered by the Government. See, e.g., Pierce v. UnderwoodSearch
-
Davidson v. VenemanSearch
-
Lauer v. BarnhartSearch
-
Libas, Ltd. v. UnitedSearch
-
citing Smith v. BarrySearch
-
and Foman v. DavisSearch
-
well before 1938, the year the Federal Rules became effective. See, e.g., New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. v. KinneySearch
-
Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. RennSearch
-
Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. WulfSearch
-
see Ardestani v. INSSearch
-
opinion of Mayer, C. J.). Our decisions in Irwin v. DepartmentSearch
-
of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89 (1990), and Franconia Associates v. UnitedSearch
-
this distinguishes his case from Torres v. OaklandSearch
-
Id ., at 38. We do not think that this question, as the Government suggests, was answered in Commissioner, INS v. JeanSearch
-
p. 9 (1980). Scarborough v. PrincipiSearch
-
Thomas, J., Dissenting Scarborough V. PrincipiSearch
-
s waiver. The Court reaches its holding today by distorting the scope of Irwin v. DepartmentSearch
-
d)(1)(A). See Ardestani v. INSSearch
-
United States v. NordicSearch
-
of Edelman v. LynchburgSearch
-
New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. v. KinneySearch
-
and Franconia Associates v. UnitedSearch
-
Randall C. Scarborough, Petitioner V. AnthonySearch
-
See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. WildernessSearch
-
the Government. Scarborough v. WestSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial