Legal Opinion
Akers v. Nicholson Briddell v. Nicholson
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided May 26, 2005No. 2004-7132PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RADER, Circuit Judge.
The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denied the applications of John R. Briddell and Mabel A. Akers (collectively, appellants) for awards of attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2000). Both applications were denied on the ground that applicants were not “prevailing parties.” Akers v. Principi, 18 Vet.App. 430 (Table) (2003); Briddell v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 267 (2002). Because neither appellant is a “prevailing party” under the criteria established by Buckhannon Board & Care Home,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Hanrahan v. HamptonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Fenderson v. WestUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1999
- Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- McArthur Jones, Claimant-Appellant, and Martin M. Karnas, Claimant-Appellant v. Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans AffairsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Exigent Technology, Inc. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Davis v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Gurley v. PeakeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Zuri Zuberi v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006
- Thompson v. Dept. Of Veterans AffairsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.