Hernandez v. Kalinowski’s Empirical Analysis
146 F.3d 196 · 1998
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Brightwell v. Lehman (2011), United States v. Graham (1999)
12 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 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
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School District · White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security · Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, in which attorney’s fees are authorized under section 1988 of this title, such fees shall not be awarded, except to the extent that— (A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiffs rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded under section 1988 of this title....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.