Legal Opinion
A. Hirsh, Inc. v. The United States, and Paint Applicators Trade Action Coalition
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided November 6, 1991No. 91-1013PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MICHEL, Circuit Judge.
A. Hirsh, Inc. (“Hirsh”) appeals the order of the Court of International Trade (“trade court”) denying its request for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA” or the “Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (1988), and sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 against defendant Paint Applicators Trade Action Coalition (“PATAC”), some of its members, and its counsel. A. Hirsh, Inc. v. United States, 747 F.Supp. 723 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990). Because the trade court correctly applied the Act’s “prevailing party” standard for awarding attorney fees and costs, and…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Amsted Industries Incorporated v. Buckeye Steel Castings CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- State Industries, Inc. v. Mor-Flo Industries, Inc. And American Appliance Mfg. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, and Mikki Graves Walser, Sanctioned Party-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- The Honorable Keith M. Lundin v. L. Ralph MechamCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1993
- Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1992
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.