9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Jan. 3, 2019
En banc 9th Circuit calls for new look at attorney fees in ‘No Fly’ list litigation
A San Jose plaintiffs’ firm that successfully challenged a Stanford Ph.D. student’s designation on the Transportation Security Administration’s “No Fly” list will have a second chance to request attorney fees after more than 12 years of litigation.
A San Jose plaintiffs' firm that successfully challenged a Stanford Ph.D. student's designation on the Transportation Security Administration's "No Fly" list will have a second chance to request attorney fees after more than 12 years of litigation.
On Wednesday, an en banc panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled U.S. District Judge William Alsup was wrong...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
Appellate Practice, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
When success is incomplete but extraordinary: Attorney fees in Ibrahim v. DHS
By Susan Yorke
Remedies
Ibrahim v. DHS
In determining whether the government acted in bad faith, for purposes of attorney fees under the EAJA, the district court must take into consideration the totality of the circumstances.
