Legal Opinion
United States v. Aisenberg
District Court, M.D. Florida
Decided January 31, 2003No. 3:99-cr-00324PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MERRYDAY, District Judge.
Steven and Marlene Aisenberg (the Ai-senbergs) seek recovery of “a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation expenses” pursuant to Section 617 of Public Law Number 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519 (1997) (the Hyde Amendment). 1 For reasons conspicuous in the record of this extraordinary case, the United States of America concedes liability — apparently the only such concession by the Department of Justice since enactment of the Hyde Amendment — for a prosecution that was either “vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith” within the meaning of the Hyde Amendment.…
2Cases cited114 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981
- United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Steven B. AisenbergCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004
- In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003 Directed to (A) Grand Jury Witness Firm and (B) Grand Jury WitnessDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- Former Employees of BMC Software, Inc. v. United States Secretary of LaborUnited States Court of International Trade · 2007
- Jon Davler, Inc. v. Arch Insurance CompanyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Aisenberg v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's OfficeDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.