Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In RE: BRUCE EDWARD BABBITT (Babbitt Fee Application)

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided May 21, 2002No. Division 98-1Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRichard D. Cudahy, Circuit Judge

The comparison of a real-life investigation to a hypothetical investigation — which is what the “but for” test is all about — is necessarily conjectural. We can really only guess what kind of an inquiry Secretary Babbitt would have been subjected to had there been no Independent Counsel Act.

The majority concedes that Secretary Babbitt is entitled to fees incurred in responding to the final report of the independent counsel. I agree with this unarguable concession as to an expense which could not possibly have been incurred but for the independent counsel’s investigation. But I cannot agree…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. In Re Theodore B. OLSONCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
  2. In Re Oliver L. North (Bush Fee Application)Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1995
  3. In Re Raymond J. DonovanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
  4. In Re Oliver L. North (Dutton Fee Application)Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1993
  5. In Re Edwin Meese IIICourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API