Copart, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board

GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

The question presented in this case is whether an order of this court simply stating “Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees is denied” decided, either explicitly or by necessary implication, the issue of interve-nor Charles Dalton’s entitlement to fees for his attorney’s work before this court from petitioner Copart, Inc., under 49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(3)(B), a provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (“STAA”). Because we determine our order did not decide the issue, we hold that the law of the case doctrine did not preclude the United States…