Adsani v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
139 F.3d 67 · 1998
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Pedraza v. United Guaranty Corp. (2002), Azizian v. Federated Department Stores, Inc. (2007)
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
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 17 U.S.C. § 505 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · North Carolina v. Pearce · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Boddie v. Connecticut
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Adsani’s argument that Rule 7 costs cannot include attorney’s fees is also unavailing because the Copyright Act in section 505 of Title 17 allows attorney’s fees to be levied 'as part of the costs.’ ”), with Hirschensohn v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., No. 96-7312, 1997 WL 307777 (3d Cir. June 10, 1997) (”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a supersedeas bond is retrospective covering sums related to the merits of the underlying judgment (and stay of its execution), whereas a cost bond is prospective relating to the potential expenses of litigating an appeal”) (emphasis added) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Accord In re AOL Time Warner, 2007 WL 2741033 , at n. 4 (refusing to”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[G]iven the importance of “costs” to the Rule, it is very unlikely that this omission [of a definition of “costs”] was mere oversight; on the contrary, the most reasonable inference is that the term “costs” in Rule 68 was intended to refer to all costs properly awardable under the relevant substantive statute or other authority.”
3 later decisions 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.