Lisa v. Strom’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army (2001), Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C. (2006)
2 federal appellate · 28 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 DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. · Crooker v. United States Department of Justice · Hannon v. Security National Bank · Connor v. Cal-Az Properties, Inc. · Sweis v. Chatwin
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A non-lawyer pro se litigant, however, also suffers an "opportunity" cost, yet has no right to recover for his time spent preparing for litigation. Moreover, because of his unfamiliarity with the practice of law, a layman appearing pro se must spend more time preparing for the case than the lawyer appearing pro se. The time a layman spends in court preparing memoranda, investigating facts, is time when he cannot be practicing his own trade-but we do not allow him an award of fees for time spent working on the case because his recoverable attorney's fees are those he is reasonably obligated to pay his attorney, not his "opportunity" costs. The judicial system would be unfair if an attorney-litigant could qualify for a fee award without incurring the potential out-of-pocket obligation that the opposing non-lawyer party must bear in order to qualify for a similar award. Moreover, when both parties opt to litigate pro se, it would be palpably unjust for one of them (the pro se lawyer) to be eligible for an attorney's fee award, while the other (the pro se layman) would not. [(Emphasis in original).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a genuine financial obligation on the part of the litigants to pay such fees.”
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.