EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Lowery v. Wilkie |
$ 2,298
|
WINDHAM, MALORY O | Benefits under Title 38 | BVA committed a remandable or reversable error | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Bailey v. Wilkie |
$ 3,084
|
WINDHAM, MALORY O | Benefits under Title 38 | BVA committed a remandable or reversable error | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Schultz v. Wilkie |
$ 7,968
|
WILSON, LUKE D | Benefits under Title 38 | BVA committed a remandable or reversable error | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Cascio v. Wilkie |
$ 12,924
|
WILLIAMS, NIQUE | Benefits under Title 38 | BVA committed a remandable or reversable error | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Stone v. Wilkie |
$ 6,067
|
WILLIAMS, JOHN M | Benefits under Title 38 | BVA committed a remandable or reversable error | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Rosado v. Wilkie |
$ 9,859
|
WILLIAMS, JAMES C | Benefits under Title 38 | BVA committed a remandable or reversable error | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs |
$ 5,000
|
Williams Building Company, Inc. | Appeal under the Contract Disputes Act for claims of government delay on a construction contract. | Settlement agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs |
$ 23,000
|
Williams Building Company, Inc. | Appeal under the Contract Disputes Act for claims of government delay on a construction contract. | Settlement agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs |
$ 4,211
|
Williams Building Company, Inc. | Appeal under the Contract Disputes Act for claims of government delay on a construction contract. | Settlement agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Center for Biological Diversity et al v. Leverette et al |
$ 210,000
|
William J. Snaoe, III, Marc D. Fink and Allison N. Melton | Failure to consider the cumulative impacts of the prospecting permits along with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions prior to issuing the prospecting permits. Consider whether the extension of the prospecting permits, and Twin Metals’ Mine Plan of Operations, preference right lease applications, and/or new permit applications are cumulative and/or connected actions that must be considered together. Consider and address relevant new science and information, prior to issuing the prospecting permits. Prepare and environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to issuing the prospecting permits. 1)Failure to consult with the FWS and ensure no jeopardy to listed species and no adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat, prior to issuing the prospecting permits. Specifically, concerning the Canada lynx, gray wolf, and northern long-eared bat. 2) Reinitiate and complete consultation on the ongoing impacts of the hard rock minerals prospecting permits on the Superior National Forest, concerning the gray wolf, northern long-eared bat. 3) The BLM violated its own regulations in issuing the prospecting permits. Specifically, pursuant to the BLM’s regulations, in order to extend a prospecting permit, the BLM must prove that (a) the mining company “explored with reasonable diligence,” and was unable to determine the existence and workability of a valuable deposit covered by their permit, or (b) that the permittee’s failure to perform diligent prospecting activities was due to conditions beyond their control. 43 C.F.R. § 3505.62(a). | Failed to comply with NEPA by not conducting an Environmental Assessment. The BLM violated its own regulations in issuing the prospecting permits. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) | Fletcher, et al. v. United States |
$ 34,840
|
William Fletcher | Complaint contained four claims: (1) that the government’s regulations violated their First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to vote in Osage tribal elections and to participate in the Osage Tribe’s government; (2) that the government breached its trust responsibilities by (a) eliminating plaintiffs’ right to participate or vote in Osage tribal elections, and (b) allowing headrights to be alienated to persons not of Osage blood; (3) that the government’s failure to manage the Tribe’s assets, coupled with the government’s inability to keep Osage headrights from passing into the hands of those who are not of Osage blood, constituted a Fifth Amendment taking; and (4) that federal regulations restricting plaintiffs’ right to participate in tribal government constituted illegal agency action pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. | Request for fees denied. Court awarded costs because Plaintiff was a prevailing party and the "substantially justified" criteria doesn't apply to costs. Plaintiffs have appealed to the 10th Circuit. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Null | United States v. 269 Acres, More or Less, Located in Beaufort County, South Carolina |
$ 84,757
|
William D. Trask, Jr. | The United States filed this case in 2016 to impose a permanent restrictive easement over 269.22 acres of land located in Beaufort, South Carolina, which the landowners had owned in fee simple since 1955. The easement restricts land development in the flight path of jets in and out of the adjacent U.S. Marine Corps Air Station. | The court found that the government’s pre-litigation actions and litigation positions were not substantially justified because it had taken three different stances on valuation for determination of just compensation for the property. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Grover v. Wilkie |
$ 2,776
|
WILDHABER, MICHAEL E | Benefits under Title 38 | BVA committed a remandable or reversable error | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Clair v. Wilkie |
$ 6,648
|
WILDHABER, MICHAEL E | Benefits under Title 38 | BVA committed a remandable or reversable error | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Healey v. Wilkie |
$ 2,720
|
WILDHABER, MICHAEL E | Benefits under Title 38 | BVA committed a remandable or reversable error | Show |