Substantially justified means having a reasonable basis in law and fact.
Substantially justified means “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). The Sixth Circuit has held that a party meets the “substantially justified” standard if “there is a genuine dispute, or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action.” Doe v. Lexington–Fayette Urban Co. Gov't, 407 F.3d 755, 765 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pierce, 487 U.S. at 552)). As noted by the Supreme Court, “the one [connotation] most naturally conveyed by the phrase before us here is
Substantially justified means that the state's position had a reasonable basis in law and fact, based on the totality of the circumstances before and during the . .
Examples of Substantially justified in a sentence
Substantially justified partial supply and - service (e.g. size of installation, work progress, etc.) is admissible and maybe invoiced separately.
Substantially justified means the Department had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time the action was brought for believing the respondent committed the violation.
Substantially justified means justified in substance or in the mains, rather than justified to a high degree, and even losing arguments could commonly be found to be substantially justified.
Their Six-page Single-spaced excerpt from a March 1993 congressional hearing (Pl. Br. at 12-17) adds nothing to their argument that defendants were not Substantially justified.
Substantially justified means “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” Noble v.
More Definitions of Substantially justified
Substantially justified means more than frivolous, or undeserving of sanctions. In re Friend, 156
Substantially justified as it appears in Rule 37, means “a genuine dispute or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action.” Lester v. City of Lafayette, Colo., 639 F. App’x 538, 542 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)). Substantial justification does not require justification “to a high degree, but rather justified in substance or in the main—that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” Id. (citing Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565).
Substantially justified means "justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person." Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). Thus, even an incorrect position can be justified "if a reasonable person could think it correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact." Id. at 566 n.2; see Stillwell, 6 Vet.App. at 302. In determining the reasonableness of the Secretary's position, the Court must analyze the "'totality of the circumstances' surrounding the government's adoption of a particular position." Patrick v. Shinseki, 668 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Such factors include "merits, conduct, reasons given, and consistency with judicial precedent and VA policy with respect to such position, and action or failure to act," along with any other applicable circumstances.3 Stillwell, 6 Vet.App. at 302; see Cline v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 325, 327 (2013). No
Substantially justified means that the state's position had a reasonable basis in law and fact, based on the totality of the circumstances before and during the litigation or contested case proceeding.
Substantially justified means " `justified in substance
Substantially justified within the meaning of Rule 37 means “a genuine dispute or if reasonable people could differ as the appropriateness of the contested action.” Lester v. City of Lafayette, Colo., 639 F. App’x 538, 542 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)). Substantial justification does not require a high degree of justification, but rather the position must be “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” Id. Ad Astra argues that its position was substantially justified, for two primary reasons: (1) according to Ad Astra, it made good-faith efforts to resolve the dispute by amending its response multiple times— including providing a paragraph explaining its methodology—and by answering follow-up questions, and (2) Ad Astra was justified in asserting its initial relevance objection because it had a reasonable basis to believe that its selection methodology bore no basis to the claims or defenses in this case.
Substantially justified means, of course, more than merely undeserving of