Ralph H. And Jackie C. Minor, Residents of the State of Washington v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Ralph H. And Jackie C. Minor, Residents of the State of Washington v. United States

797 F.2d 738, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28062

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 1986

Docket84-4159

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 797 F.2d 738 (Ralph H. And Jackie C. Minor, Residents of the State of Washington v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ralph H. And Jackie C. Minor, Residents of the State of Washington v. United States, 797 F.2d 738, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28062 (9th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This appeal challenges the refusal of the district court to tax attorneys’ fees against the United States under the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)) on the ground that the position of the United States was substantially justified in this test case involving an important and doubtful issue of tax law. The opinion on the merits is reported at 772 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir.1985).

The EAJA was intended to facilitate the efforts of private parties to vindicate their rights when confronted with arbitrary actions by representatives of the government, without at the same time discouraging the type of vigorous advocacy on the part of government counsel which Congress felt was essential to the enforcement of federal law. Accordingly, Congress established a standard of substantial justification for determining whether the government should be held liable for its opponents attorneys’ fees when it loses a case. As the House Committee Report on the EAJA makes clear, this standard is “essentially one of reasonableness. Where the Government can show that its case had a reasonable basis both in law and fact, no award will be made.” H.R.Rep. No. 96-1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. at 10 ([1980] 5 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4953, 4984, 4989).

The district court in this case found that the position of the United States was substantially justified. In particular the court found that the issues presented by the government were not “subject to resolution by clear, controlling precedent,” and that this was a test case whose outcome would resolve a large number of similar disputes then pending administratively. This determination is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. See e.g., Rawlings v. Heckler, 725 F.2d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir.1984). Manifestly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the government was substantially justified in seeking judicial resolution of the important, and doubtful, question of tax law presented in this case.

We affirm the district court order. Each party is to pay its own costs in this court.

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

ORDER

This appeal challenges the refusal of the district court to tax attorneys’ fees against the United States under the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)) on the ground that the position of the United States was substantially justified in this test case involving an important and doubtful issue of tax law. The opinion on the merits is reported at 772 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir.1985).

The EAJA was intended to facilitate the efforts of private parties to vindicate their rights when confronted with arbitrary actions by representatives of the government, without at the same time discouraging the type of vigorous advocacy on the part of government counsel which Congress felt was essential to the enforcement of federal law. Accordingly, Congress established a standard of substantial justification for determining whether the government should be held liable for its opponents attorneys’ fees when it loses a case. As the House Committee Report on the EAJA makes clear, this standard is “essentially one of reasonableness. Where the Government can show that its case had a reasonable basis both in law and fact, no award will be made.” H.R.Rep. No. 96-1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. at 10 ([1980] 5 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4953, 4984, 4989).

The district court in this case found that the position of the United States was substantially justified. In particular the court found that the issues presented by the government were not “subject to resolution by clear, controlling precedent,” and that this was a test case whose outcome would resolve a large number of similar disputes then pending administratively. This determination is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. See e.g., Rawlings v. Heckler, 725 F.2d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir.1984). Manifestly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the government was substantially justified in seeking judicial resolution of the important, and doubtful, question of tax law presented in this case.

We affirm the district court order. Each party is to pay its own costs in this court.

Lear Siegler, Inc., Energy Products Division, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross v. John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, Defendants-Appellants/cross- Lear Siegler Inc., and United States Senate United States House of Representatives, Plaintiffs- Intervenors-Appellees v. John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy William Stevenson, Contracting Officer

842 F.2d 1102 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)

Edwards v. McMahon

834 F.2d 796 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Helene Edwards Christine Streicher Diamond, and Helen Edwards Christine Streicher Diamond California Coalition of Welfare Rights Organizations Sharon Lilly Judith A. Tillings Plaintiffs-Intervenors/appellees v. Linda S. McMahon Director of the State Department of Social Services Department of Social Services, an Agency of the State of California Michael Franchetti, Director of the Department of Finance of the State of California Dept. Of Finance, an Agency of the State of California Defendants/counter-Claimants, Third-Party v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Third-Party

834 F.2d 796 (Third Circuit, 1987)

Martin v. Bowen

670 F. Supp. 295 (E.D. California, 1987)

Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman

817 F.2d 484 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Oregon Environmental Council v. Leonard Kunzman

817 F.2d 484 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Sierra Club v. Marsh

816 F.2d 1376 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

United States v. University Oaks Civic Club

653 F. Supp. 1469 (S.D. Texas, 1987)

Oliveira v. Bowen

664 F. Supp. 1320 (N.D. California, 1986)

Johnson v. Meese

654 F. Supp. 265 (E.D. Michigan, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

797 F.2d 738, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralph-h-and-jackie-c-minor-residents-of-the-state-of-washington-v-ca9-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack