Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Balridge - Demel v. Nicholson
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Decided July 26, 2005No. 03-1237(E), 03-1549(E)Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKasold, Judge
Although I concur with much of the majority opinion, I respectfully do not believe it is appropriate in this case to apply an across-the-board percentage reduction to the requested EAJA fees; nor do I believe we should suggest detailed procedures for EAJA applications outside of our normal rule-making authority. For the reasons stated below, I dissent with respect to sections II.A.3.Ü and A.4, II.B, and II.C of the opinion.
At the outset, I re-emphasize the conclusion of the majority that the argument presented by both appellants — that the approach undertaken by counsel in managing these…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Hugh L. Carey, Individually and as Governor of the State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Dolores J. Copeland, Individually and on Behalf of the Class of All Others Similarly Situated v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of LaborCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- Hughes v. RepkoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- Prandini v. National Tea Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.