Legal Opinion · Dissent

Johnson v. McDonald

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Decided July 5, 2016No. 10-1785(E)Published

1DissentBartley, Judge

Because the majority fails to apply the appropriate analysis for substantial justification under EAJA—whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, the Agency’s litigation and agency positions were reasonable at the time those positions were taken—I dissent. Although the majority cites the totality of the circumstances standard, in substance the majority focuses on one factor, the Federal Circuit’s merits determination in Johnson v. McDonald (Johnson II), 762 F.3d 1362 (Fed.Cir.2014), without considering all of the pertinent factors surrounding the government’s conduct. This…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  5. Auer v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API