Bristol Technology, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1821 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Hugh L. Carey, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York · Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may award, to the plaintiff, ... costs and reasonable attorneys' fees based on the work reasonably performed by an attorney and not on the amount of recovery.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In state court, Conn. Gen.Stat. Sec. 52-257(b) provides for taxable costs. CUTPA, however, authorizes the award of costs over and above these taxable cost provisions”). 24 . Charts also moved for prejudgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (a). As Nationwide notes in its memorandum in opposition, however, § 1961 only provides for postjudgment interest. See § 1961(a) (providing that”
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.