In Re Oliver L. North (Watson Fee Application)’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2015
5 district ·
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 National Association of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense Green · In Re Raymond J Donovan · In Re Edwin Meese III · In Re Oliver L. North (Shultz Fee Application)
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Attorneys who anticipate making a fee application must maintain contemporaneous, complete and standardized time records which accurately reflect the work done by each attorney.... “[A]ny attorney who hopes to obtain an allowance from the court should keep accurate and current records of work done and time spent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“attorneys in Meese maintained and submitted contemporaneous records of the time they expended, even though some entries were inadequate,”
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.