Legal Opinion
Maury Hexamer v. Patrick Foreness
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided July 27, 1993No. 91-5115PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT:
Following our ruling in her favor, Maury Hexamer filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 1 We denied her motion in an unpublished order. Hexamer now asks us to reconsider.
Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a party that prevails against the United States is generally entitled to attorney’s fees unless the United States’ position was “substantially justified” or “special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Although Hexamer is a prevailing party, she is not entitled to attorney’s fees for three…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Merrell v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Gerald L. Naekel v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Stephen S. Crooker v. Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- Richard Demarest v. James Manspeaker, Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado Cathy, Last Name UnknownCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Edward Krecioch v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003
- Securities And Exchange Commission v. Price WaterhouseCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Daley v. Federal Bureau of PrisonsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. WaterhouseCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Charles Lavel Stringer v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2026
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.