Freddie Butts v. Robert A. McDonald
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
1DissentBartley, Judge
I agree with Judge Lance that the Government’s position was substantially justified and therefore join his dissent to the extent that he would hold that EAJA fees be denied in this case. I write separately, however, to point out that the appropriate analysis for substantial justification asks whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, the Agency’s litigation and agency-level positions were reasonable at the time they were taken. Although the majority gives lip service to the totality of the circumstances, in substance the majority focuses on only one factor, the Federal Circuit’s…
2Cases cited58 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Auer v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.