Ava P. Trahan v. Donald T. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury

D.C. Circuit

Ava P. Trahan v. Donald T. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury

866 F.2d 1424, 275 U.S. App. D.C. 306, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 19051, 1988 WL 148240

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 1988

Docket86-5051

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 866 F.2d 1424 (Ava P. Trahan v. Donald T. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ava P. Trahan v. Donald T. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, 866 F.2d 1424, 275 U.S. App. D.C. 306, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 19051, 1988 WL 148240 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

By order dated October 26, 1987, we accepted appellants’ suggestion that this case be reheard en banc. 832 F.2d 158 (D.C.Cir.1987). By subsequent order, we explained the purpose of the rehearing was to consider the proper application of the term “substantially justified” under the Equal Access to Justice Act. We held our proceedings in abeyance, however, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce v. Underwood, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988).

The Supreme Court held in Pierce v. Underwood,-, 108 S.Ct. at 2549-53, that the statutory phrase “substantially justified” means justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person, and not, as our case law had declared, “slightly more” than that. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that an abuse-of-discretion, not a de novo, standard of review applies to district court determinations. Id. at- -, 108 S.Ct. at 2546-49. Because both the district court, following our precedent, and this court applied a definition of “substantially justified” that the Supreme Court has disapproved, it is

ORDERED by the court en banc, on its own motion, that the panel opinion, 824 F.2d 96 (D.C.Cir.1987), and the district court opinion, 625 F.Supp. 1163 (D.D.C. 1985), be vacated and that the case be remanded to the district court for fresh consideration of the application for attorney’s fees and litigation costs under the standard specified in Pierce v. Underwood.

The Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the District Court in lieu of formal mandate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

By order dated October 26, 1987, we accepted appellants’ suggestion that this case be reheard en banc. 832 F.2d 158 (D.C.Cir.1987). By subsequent order, we explained the purpose of the rehearing was to consider the proper application of the term “substantially justified” under the Equal Access to Justice Act. We held our proceedings in abeyance, however, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce v. Underwood, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988).

The Supreme Court held in Pierce v. Underwood,-, 108 S.Ct. at 2549-53, that the statutory phrase “substantially justified” means justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person, and not, as our case law had declared, “slightly more” than that. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that an abuse-of-discretion, not a de novo, standard of review applies to district court determinations. Id. at- -, 108 S.Ct. at 2546-49. Because both the district court, following our precedent, and this court applied a definition of “substantially justified” that the Supreme Court has disapproved, it is

ORDERED by the court en banc, on its own motion, that the panel opinion, 824 F.2d 96 (D.C.Cir.1987), and the district court opinion, 625 F.Supp. 1163 (D.D.C. 1985), be vacated and that the case be remanded to the district court for fresh consideration of the application for attorney’s fees and litigation costs under the standard specified in Pierce v. Underwood.

The Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the District Court in lieu of formal mandate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 F.2d 1424, 275 U.S. App. D.C. 306, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 19051, 1988 WL 148240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ava-p-trahan-v-donald-t-regan-secretary-of-the-treasury-cadc-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack