Ellis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
711 F.2d 1571 · 1983
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Sierra Club v. Secretary of the Army (1987), Ashburn v. United States (1984)
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 28 U.S.C. § 451 · 5 U.S.C. § 8336 · 5 U.S.C. § 8344
Relies on Broad Avenue Laundry & Tailoring v. United States · Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Realm of Louisiana v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board U S · 533 F. Supp. 348 - Photo Data, Inc. v. Sawyer · Goldhaber v. Foley
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a judgment for costs, as enumerated in section 1920 of this title, but not including the fees and expenses of attorneys, may be awarded to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States ... in any court having jurisdiction of such action---- (b) Unless expressly prohibited by statute, a court may award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, in addition to the costs which may be awarded pursuant to subsection (a), to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States or any agency and any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction of such action. The United States shall be liable for such fees and expenses to the same extent that any other party would be liable under the common law or under the terms of any statute which specifically provides for such an award. H; ¡k sk Hi =k * (d)(1)(A) Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort) brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unju”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“because the [Act’s] primary purpose is to eliminate legal expense as a barrier to challenges of unreasonable governmental action, it is proper for us to assess attorney’s fees and costs against the government for a separate phase or portion of the litigation in which its position lacks substantial justification — even though the government may have adopted wholly reasonable positions in other facets of the case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“position of the United States,” which included the underlying agency action as well as the Government’s litigating position, was too broad. Such a definition could lead to protracted litigation and duplicative discovery. To ameliorate the President’s concerns, the 99th Congress ultimately enacted H.R. 2378, sponsored by Congressman Kastenmeier. The bill limited the determination of whether the Government’s position was substantially justified to the agency and court record. This change eliminated the need for extended discovery and litigation. The President therefore signed H.R. 2378, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1985, 132 into law on August 5, 1985. . Plaintiffs reply brief lends support to the court’s reading of the fee application. Plaintiff asserted: “[Tjhe position of the Government was not substantially justified at the following three stages during the litigation ... (2) the AGBCA’s actions leading up to and dismissal with prejudice of Griffin and Dickson’s appeal____” Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs Application for an Award under the Equal Access to Justice Act, filed April 25, 1990, at 7. Plaintiff further contends that the settlement agreement with the Government preserved the right to recover fees incurred "regarding the issue of complying with the proof of cost order, both at the Board and before the Claims Court____” Plaintiff’s Reply, No. 57-86C, filed April 15, 1990, at 16. . Some courts had held that "position of the United States”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.