NAIL v. MARTINEZ, 04-60178
A decision by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), that is later found to be arbitrary and capricious, does not mean that the HUD acted without "substantial justification."
- Decided 11/19/2004
- Published 11/23/2004
- E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:, Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
- United States Fifth Circuit
- For Appellant:
- Michael Thomas Dawkins (argued), Clarence Lee Lott (argued), Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, Jackson, MS, E. Grey Lewis, Law Offices of E. Grey Lewis, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
- For Appellees:
- Michael Eugene Robinson, Michael Jay Singer, Anthony Alan Yang (argued), U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div.-App. Staff, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.