Hardesty v. Astrue

Response to AG's Opposition to EAJA fees


EAJA fees seem to be a hot topic around the nation right now. AGs and courts seems to be working hand in hand to deny EAJA fees for whatever reason they can find. Here, the AG simply misstated the facts of the case. I felt that a Rule 11 motion should have been filed against them for blatantly misstating the facts to the court, but was satisfied that they did not choose to bear their burden to show that the fees were excessive in any way once we filed this response. Morrison's verbage here simply made me mad, and while I feel confident in our position, I'm not celebrating until the money is in the bank because the unpublished opinions from our district have been finding some way to deny fees for about the last 2 years. Anyone else having this experience?

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:Federal, 7th Circuit, Indiana | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Research Specialists, Inc. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Research Specialists, Inc. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.