Legal Opinion
A. Hirsh, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided July 26, 1990No. Court No. 89-06-00366PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion and Order
Restani, Judge:
Pursuant to Rule 68 of this court, counsel for A. Hirsh, Inc. (applicant) has applied for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA).1 The government responds that applicant was not entitled to fees as it was not a prevailing party under the terms of the statute; and that, even if the court found that applicant were a prevailing party, the government’s position was substantially justified.2
The applicant had challenged the United States International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination summarily denying applicant’s…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. JeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1978
- Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Benerethia McGill v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- A. Hirsh, Inc. v. The United States, and Paint Applicators Trade Action CoalitionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- United States v. Modes, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 1994