Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Drive, Alamo, California

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 18, 2002No. 00-16772Published

1DissentKozinski, Circuit Judge

1. To be liable under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the United States *1154must take a position in litigation that is not just wrong, but so wrong that it is not “substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). This means that the position must lack any “reasonable basis in both law and fact.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). An incorrect position is substantially justified under the EAJA if “a reasonable person could think it correct.” Id. at 566 n. 2, 108 S.Ct. 2541. Pierce held that this test is similar to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Sullivan v. HudsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. United States v. Parcel of Rumson, NJ, LandSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Rosario Gutierrez v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  5. Bay Area Peace Navy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990

5 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