Legal Opinion
United States v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Drive, Alamo, California
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 18, 2002No. 00-16772PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Dissent by Judge KOZINZKI.
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We are asked to decide whether the litigation position of the United States Department of Justice was substantially justified when it continued to advance a forfeiture claim after the Supreme Court clarified the law to the contrary.
I
The United States appeals from the district court’s judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) of the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), awarding Robert Fitzstephens, Wilson Young, Keith Slipper, Joseph Ippolito, Michael Thaler, and Mark Schwab (“purchasers”) attorney’s fees…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Thomas FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary, Health and Human Services, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Parcel of Rumson, NJ, LandSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Rosario Gutierrez v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Bay Area Peace Navy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Bureau of Land ManagementDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2007
- United States v. Real Property At 2659 Roundhill Drive, Alamo, CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. ShermanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007