additional reimbursement for their TEFRA years. Indeed, as the Secretary's counsel admitted at oral argument, appellants were placed at the top of the payee list by virtue of their having filed suit, probably because he realized that appellants would be continually accruing interest until they were finally paid the amounts due them. See, e.g., Chicano Police Officer’s Ass’n v. Stover, 624 F.2d 127, 131 (10th Cir.1980) (“‘[T]he “compliance” achieved in this case would not have happened, certainly not as early or as thoroughly as it has, without the initial and continued impact of plaintiffs’ action.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Aspira of New York, Inc. v. Board of Educ., 65 F.R.D. 541, 544 (S.D.N.Y.1975))); Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Young, 909 F.2d 546, 550 (D.C.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In sum, we believe that appellants have fully
holding that plaintiff was prevailing party at least in part because lawsuit forced agency to promulgate desired regulation more quickly than agency otherwise would have holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review holding that the head of a state administrative agency was protected by executive privilege and could not be forced to appear in court and answer questions about funding of the agency holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding