Legal Opinion

Cobell v. Norton

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided December 19, 2005No. Civ.A. 96-1285(RCL)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LAMBERTH, District Judge.

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Equal Access to Justice Act Petition for Interim Fees Through the Phase 1.0 Proceeding (“Interim Fee Petition”). Plaintiffs seek fees and expenses in the amount of $14,528,467.21 for them efforts “resolv[ing] issues” central to Phase 1.0 of the case and “set[ting] the stage for future relief.” Cobell v. Norton, 319 F.Supp.2d 36, 41 (D.D.C.2004). Defendants oppose the In*145terim Fee Petition, citing both plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a legal entitlement to an award under the Equal Access to Justice Act as well as…

2Cases cited98 opinions

Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975

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

3Cited by1 opinion

Cobell v. NortonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005