Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Chevron Pipe Line Company et al.’s Empirical Analysis
205 F.3d 222 · 2000
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Coker v. Coker · National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Industries, Inc.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) time and labor required; (2) novelty and difficulty of the issues; (3) required skill; (4) whether other employment is precluded; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the attorneys' experience, reputation and ability; (10) the `undesirability' of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“entitled to look at the entire record and to view the matter in the light of the testimony, the amount in controversy, the nature of the case, and our common knowledge and experience as lawyers and judges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the ultimate award of fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion, as are determinations regarding hours and rates.”
1 later decision 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.