Makray v. Solis’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
10 district ·
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 33 U.S.C. § 1365 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 6972 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air · Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. Agyei · City of Burlington v. Dague
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) An affidavit from one of the plaintiffs Participating Attorneys providing additional information regarding that attorney’s practice of charging paying clients at rates based on the LSl/Salazar Matrix and explaining that this attorney has received reimbursement at such rates in a prior civil rights action before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, see Fourth Fee Aff. Jeffrey R. Light (Aug. 10, 2015), ECF No. 33-15; (2) A declaration from the economist who developed the LSl/Salazar Matrix explaining the distinction between that matrix and the USAO Lajfey Matrix and averring that the LSl/Salazar Matrix more closely approximates actual prevailing rates for legal services in the Washington, D.C. area, see Deck Michael Kava-naugh (June 1,2010), ECF No. 33-1; (3) Declarations from three civil rights attorneys practicing in the Washington D.C. area, who attest to the appropriateness of LSl/Salazar-level reimbursement rates in complex federal civil rights litigation, see Deck Paul D. Clement (Mar. 10, 2014), ECF No. 33-5; Aff. Rachel Meeropol (Aug. 10, 2015), ECF No. 33-13; Aff. Robert Corn-Revere (Aug. 11, 2015), ECF No. 33-14; (4) Two articles from the National Law Journal indicating that private attorneys in the Washington, D.C. area charged rates roughly equivalent to the rates provided under the LSl/Salazar Matrix in matters involving complex federal litigation, see Ph’s Supp., Ex. 2, ECF No. 33-3; id., Ex. 3, ECF No. 33-4. (5) An article from Corporate Counsel listing”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Young v. Sarles“[T]he D.C. Circuit’s suggestion in these two recent opinions that certain categories of federal litigation fall into distinct and discernable submarkets of legal services, in which prevailing market ratés applicable to the general run of ‘complex federal litigation’ may not apply, presents potential new complications for courts; as well as litigants, seeking to calculate reasonable fee awards.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“endorsement ... in the context of wage enforcement litigation provides additional evidence that the rates included in [the LSI Laffey M]atrix are equally reasonable in the context of arguably more complex gender discrimination suits brought under a federal civil rights statute,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.