Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 2302; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources v. McDonald Land & Mining Co., 664 A.2d 190, 193 n. 10 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995). While the statute places a $10,000 ceiling on the amount of fees and expenses recoverable, Energy Pipeline’s application contemplates a recovery of sixty times that amount. Furthermore, the Costs Act strictly limits recovery of fees and expenses to parties who can establish that their net worth does not exceed certain thresholds. Section 2, 71 P.S. § 2032. In sum, the Costs Act has a much narrower applicability than Energy Pipeline believes. Moreover, in deciding eases where the Costs Act did apply, this Court has liberally construed the phrase “initiates an adversarial adjudication” in awarding fees and expenses. See McDonald, 664 A-2d 190 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (<HOLDING>); West v. Western Center, Department of Public 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where party had reasonable grounds to believe conduct was in compliance with the district courts order imposition of sanctions was not warranted and constituted an abuse of discretion (B) holding that denial of mining companys bond release and issuance of compliance order constituted adversary adjudications (C) holding issuance of building estimate constituted a denial of claim and triggered the running of the limitations period (D) holding that the application of a statute prohibiting subsurface mining left the coal companys rights to underground minerals worthless and constituted a taking (E) holding that issuance of an order to show cause satisfied this requirement
Output (English): holding that where party had reasonable grounds to believe conduct was in compliance with the district courts order imposition of sanctions was not warranted and constituted an abuse of discretion