Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 F.3d 371 - Doyle v. Kamenkowitz

Doyle v. Kamenkowitz’s Empirical Analysis

114 F.3d 371 · 1997

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
June 2009
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Fogerty Fantasy Inc · Rubin v. United States · Highway Truck Drivers & Helpers, Local 107 v. Cohen

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When any officer, agent, shop steward, or representative of any labor organization is alleged to have violated the duties declared in subsection (a) of this section and the labor organization or its governing board or officers refuse or fail to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by any member of the labor organization, such member may sue such officer, agent, shop steward, or representative in any district court of the United States or in any State court of competent jurisdiction to recover damages or.secure an accounting or other appropriate, relief for the benefit of the labor organization. No such proceeding shall be brought except upon leave of the court obtained upon verified application and for good cause shown, which application may be made ex parte. The trial judge may allot a reasonable part of the recovery in any action under this subsection to pay the fees of counsel prosecuting the suit at the instance of the member of the labor organization and to compensate such member for any expenses necessarily paid or incurred by him in connection with the litigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to the defendant officers in this case. Because the district court based its fee award solely on § 501(b), without considering other possible grounds, we remand this case to the district court to determine whether the defendant officers may be awarded attorney’s fees (and have preserved the right to seek such fees) on other grounds or rationales, including those proffered in the district court (ie., the “bad faith” exception to the “American Rule” and various provisions of New York state law) and those argued here on appeal (ie., “common benefit” analysis, promissory estop-pel, or preservation of union democracy).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “and if the union itself refuses or fails to bring suit after being requested to do so by a member. Id. Section 501(b) further provides that the trial court may allot part of the recovery in such an action to pay the attorney's fees and costs of the union member who successfully brought the suit. [4] Nothing in the text of § 501(b) addresses the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by union officials who are charged with violating their fiduciary duties. Rather,”
    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.