Roberts v. Interstate Distributor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1920
Relies on Crawford Fitting Company v. Jt Gibbons Inc Champion International Corporation · Lambert v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Trainer v. United States · Kern Oil and Refining Co., Plaintiff/counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Tenneco Oil Co., Defendant/counterclaimant-Appellant · McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The time and labor required in the proceeding, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved in the proceeding and the skill needed to properly perform the legal services, (b) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment by the attorney would preclude the attorney from taking other cases. (c) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services. (d) The amount involved in the controversy and the results obtained. (e) The time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances of the case. (f) The nature and length of the attorney’s professional relationship with the client. (g) The experience, reputation and ability of the attorney performing the services. (h) Whether the fee of the attorney is fixed or contingent.”
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.