Pierce v. Underwood case brief summary
487 U.S. 552 (1988)
CASE FACTS
Respondents, government subsidized housing tenants, settled their action challenging petitioner federal agency's failure to implement an operating subsidy program and were awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2412(d)(1)(A), in excess of the statutory cap. The statute provided for the award of attorney's fees unless the court found that the government's litigating position was substantially justified and allowed for excess fees if the court determined special factors were applicable, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved.
DISCUSSION
The Court affirmed judgment in so far as it held that the trial court's award of attorney fees to respondents was not an abuse of discretion but vacated and remanded for further proceedings as to the amount of the award, finding that although petitioner federal agency's litigating position was not substantially justified, there were no special factors in the case upon which to base fees in excess of the statutory cap.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
487 U.S. 552 (1988)
CASE SYNOPSIS
After settling a suit brought against
it by respondent subsidized housing tenants, petitioner federal
agency sought review of an order of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirming the award of excess attorney
fees to respondents under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28
U.S.C.S. § 2412(d)(1)(A), based on findings that petitioner's
litigating position was not substantially justified and special
factors applied.CASE FACTS
Respondents, government subsidized housing tenants, settled their action challenging petitioner federal agency's failure to implement an operating subsidy program and were awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2412(d)(1)(A), in excess of the statutory cap. The statute provided for the award of attorney's fees unless the court found that the government's litigating position was substantially justified and allowed for excess fees if the court determined special factors were applicable, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal from a judgment holding the award was not an abuse of discretion, the Court accepted petitioner's argument that the term "substantially justified" merely connoted a reasonable basis in law and fact, but nevertheless affirmed the propriety of the award itself.
- The Court vacated and remanded as to the award amount, however, finding that special factors justifying excess fees were not present in the case. In so holding, the Court noted that the exception based on limited availability of qualified attorneys meant attorneys having distinctive knowledge or specialized skills.
The Court affirmed judgment in so far as it held that the trial court's award of attorney fees to respondents was not an abuse of discretion but vacated and remanded for further proceedings as to the amount of the award, finding that although petitioner federal agency's litigating position was not substantially justified, there were no special factors in the case upon which to base fees in excess of the statutory cap.
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