Legal Opinion
Urbano v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided December 20, 1991No. Court 91-03-00235PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CARMAN, Acting Chief Judge:
Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in his action challenging the United States Customs Service’s (“Customs”) revocation of his Customs brokers license. Plaintiff’s application for attorneys’ fees and expenses is made pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (1988).
The Court denies Plaintiff’s application for attorneys’ fees and expenses, holding that the position of Customs at both the agency level and litigation stage was substantially justified within the meaning of the law.
Ba…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- BROAD AVENUE LAUNDRY AND TAILORING, Petitioner, v. the UNITED STATES, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1982
- Morris v. Brewer v. American Battle Monuments CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- William Eugene Owen, as of the Estate of Caroline Pearson Payne v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Traveler Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- D & M Watch Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1992
- Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1996
- Sigma Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1996
- United States v. Dantzler Lumber & Export Co.United States Court of International Trade · 1993
- Harris v. Office of Personnel ManagementCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.