Legal Opinion
Carmichael v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided February 28, 2006No. 99-958CPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
FUTEY, Judge.
This military pay ease is before the court on plaintiffs Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Nontaxable Expenses. Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. In addition, he requests that the court award attorney’s fees at the rate of $150 an hour, above the statutory rate of $125 an hour, because his case was very complex and his attorney was one of a very few qualified to prosecute the case. In the alternative, plaintiff requests a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to the statutory fees.…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Scarborough v. PrincipiSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Meyer v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1992
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Greenhill v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
- DGR Associates, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
- Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- JGB Enterprises, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.