Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
148 F.3d 149 · 1998
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 25 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 328 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Terry v. Ashcroft (2003), Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales (2007)
67 federal appellate · 25 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 2111 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 628 (§ 9 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston
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 328 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`as a practical means of trimming fat from a fee application,'”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) where the court can identify an error that caused the jury to include in the verdict a quantifiable amount that should be stricken, ... and (2) more generally, where the award is ‘intrinsically excessive’ in the sense of being greater than the amount a reasonable jury could have awarded, although the surplus cannot be ascribed to a particular, quantifiable error.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[c]ounsel for the prevailing party should make a good-faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission. “In the private sector, ‘billing judgment’ is an important component in fee setting. It is no less important here. Hours that are not properly billed to one’s client also are not properly billed to one’s adversary pursuant to statutory authority.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.