Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 104 F.3d 998 - Simpson v. Sheahan

Simpson v. Sheahan’s Empirical Analysis

104 F.3d 998 · 1997

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Richard M. Perlman and Perlman Marketplace Investors v. Samuel Zell (1999), Cole v. Wodziak (1999)

10 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

160199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Farrar v. Hobby · City of Riverside v. Rivera · Lenard v. Argento · Briggs v. Marshall

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the difference between the judgment recovered and the recovery sought; (2) the significance of the legal issue on which the plaintiff prevailed; and (3) the public purpose of the litigation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]n cases which result in a nominal damage award or a damage award that is minimal in relation to the amount of damages sought, this circuit employs the three-part test from Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in Farrar to determine whether a prevailing party achieved enough success in the underlying suit to be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a fee large enough to induce competent counsel to handle the plaintiff's case, but no larger.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.