Legal Opinion
Taucher v. Rainer
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided December 18, 2002No. Civil Action 97-1711 (RMU/JMF)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FACCIOLA, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before me upon the application of the plaintiffs for attorney fees.
Background
Plaintiffs are -ten small commodity advisory publishers and their subscribers. Defendants are the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and its commissioners. The District Court held for plaintiffs and plaintiffs then sought attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). After reviewing plaintiffs’ first application for attorneys fees, I held that plaintiffs, not plaintiffs’ pro bono counsel were the real parties in interest. 1 I then…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. HarrissSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Nebraska Press Assn. v. StuartSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Taucher, Frank v. Brown-Hruska, SharonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005
- Taucher v. RainerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- Taucher, Frank v. Brown-Hruska, SharonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005
- Taucher, Frank v. Brown-Hruska, SharonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005