Legal Opinion
Doe v. Rumsfeld
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided August 21, 2007No. Civil Action 03-707 (EGS)PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SULLIVAN, District Judge.
Six plaintiffs, known as John Doe # 1 through # 4 and Jane Doe # 1 and # 2, brought this action to challenge the lawfulness of the defendants’ Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program (“AVIP”). Currently pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Upon consideration of the motion, the response and reply thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court determines that plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees, but that their pending request is flawed in several, significant aspects. Therefore, for the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Marie Lucie Jean v. Alan C. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
- Clark v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- F.J. Vollmer Company, Inc. v. John W. Magaw, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, U.S. Department of the TreasuryCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland SecurityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Parker v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Conservation Force v. SalazarDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Reed v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Douglas v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.