Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Thomas case brief summary
53 F.3d 881 (1995)
CASE FACTS
The conservationists argued that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that the chief's position on the portage issue was substantially justified, and that they were not entitled to attorney fees under the EAJA. The chief argued in his cross-appeal that the district court erred in awarding fees to the conservationists on the below-cost timber sale issue.
DISCUSSION/HOLDING
The court affirmed the district court's award of fees on the below-cost timber sales issue, but only with respect to fees incurred during the conservationists' civil action. The court reversed the district court's decision on the portage issue, and remanded for an award of fees.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
53 F.3d 881 (1995)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant conservationists applied for
attorney fees under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2412(d) of the Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in a lawsuit filed against appellees,
Chief of the United States Forest Service and the Secretary of
Agriculture (chief and secretary). The United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota denied the request for attorney fees on
the portage issue, but awarded attorney fees on another issue. Both
sides appealed.CASE FACTS
The conservationists argued that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that the chief's position on the portage issue was substantially justified, and that they were not entitled to attorney fees under the EAJA. The chief argued in his cross-appeal that the district court erred in awarding fees to the conservationists on the below-cost timber sale issue.
DISCUSSION/HOLDING
- The court held that
- (1) the chief's position on the portage issue was not clearly reasonable or well founded in law and fact, and thus, the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the chief was substantially justified;
- (2) because the conservationists' affidavits demonstrated injury in fact, traceability, and redressability with respect to below-cost timber sales, they had standing for the purpose of the EAJA; and
- (3) because the administrative proceedings on the below-cost timber sales issue preceded the civil action, the district court abused its discretion in holding that the proceedings were crucial to the vindication of the conservationists' rights, and in awarding them attorney fees for time spent in the administrative process.
The court affirmed the district court's award of fees on the below-cost timber sales issue, but only with respect to fees incurred during the conservationists' civil action. The court reversed the district court's decision on the portage issue, and remanded for an award of fees.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment