180 N.J. Super. 164 - Mayer v. Mayer’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably 253 N.J. Super. 531 - Guglielmo v. Guglielmo (1992), 263 N.J. Super. 608 - Jacobitti v. Jacobitti (1993)
27 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 Rothman v. Rothman · 48 Ohio App. 2d 85 - Swanson v. Swanson · Williams v. Williams · De Witt v. De Witt · 23 N.J. Super. 409 - Schluter v. Schluter
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is necessarily implicit that there may be allowed only such fees as represent reasonable compensation for such legal services performed as were reasonably necessary in the prosecution or defense of the litigation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“challenge and . . . test the various items contained in the certifications . . . filed in support of the . . . application[] for [professional] fees, and to enable him to test and to challenge the bill of . . . the expert[] by requiring [him] to detail the precise nature of all of the services rendered by him, the time spent and the rate or rates of compensation charged including the right to introduce evidence in challenge to the reasonableness of the rates charged by [Rubin], the necessity for any part of the services performed, the time expended, etc. [ Id. at 169, 434 A. 2d 614 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fee should not be fixed by simply taking the total time assertedly expended by counsel, without critical review and examination of the nature and extent of the services, and multiplying the total number of hours by the charges fixed in a retainer agreement made between the wife and her attorney to which charges the husband never consented or agreed. [ 180 N.J. Super. at 169 , 434 A. 2d 614 .]”
2 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.