Dishman v. Joseph’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The reviewing or appellate court’s determination on any judicial review or appeal heard under this subsection shall be based solely on the record made before the agency or court below. The court may modify, reverse or reverse and remand the determination of fees and other expenses if the court finds that the award or failure to make an award of fees and other expenses, or the calculation of the amount of the award, was arbitrary and capricious, was unreasonable, was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, or was made contrary to law or in excess of the court’s or agency’s jurisdiction.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sprenger v. Missouri Department of Public Safety · Nathan T. Cooling v. Department of Social Services, Family Support Division

2. ““must, at a minimum, state in writing its findings regarding the amount (if any) of fees and expenses to which the applicant is entitled, its conclusions regarding whether the applicant was a ‘prevailing party’ and whether the position of the State was ‘substantially justified,’ and a concise but clear explanation of the reasons for those findings and conclusions. The decision should also explain any other reasons or basis that the court or agency relied on in reaching its decision, or in resolving any specific contentions relative to the fee application that either party may have raised.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nathan T. Cooling v. Department of Social Services, Family Support Division · State Ex Rel. Pulliam v. Reine

3. “[W]e and other courts have previously held that this means that the State must show that it had a reasonable basis in both fact and law for its position, and that this basis was not merely marginally reasonable but clearly reasonable, although not necessarily correct.... While this standard would largely overlap with a good faith standard, the two standards are not necessarily synonymous. This substantial justification standard ... is the standard which the statute requires.... [T]o the extent [previous authority] suggest that “good faith” is a necessary element of determining substantial justification or that the claimant bears the burden of proof of substantial justification, they should no longer be followed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baker v. Department of Mental Health