Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Andria Priestley v. Michael Astrue
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided July 7, 2011No. 10-1113, 10-1160, 10-1176Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHamilton, Senior Circuit Judge
I agree with the majority that, in Davis, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it reduced the rate at which attorney Paul McChesney (Attorney McChesney) was compensated for travel time under the Equal Access to Justice Act (the EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and therefore, this portion of the district court’s order ruling on Davis’ motion for attorneys’ fees under the EAJA should be affirmed. However, because, in my view, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that special circumstances existed that make an award of attorneys’ fees for the professional…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Bank of Marin v. EnglandSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Sperry v. Florida Ex Rel. Florida BarSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.