341 F. Supp. 2d 1197 - Perry v. Orange County’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (§ 505 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 3613 (§ 813 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Historically, the federal courts have analyzed demands for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974). Johnson set forth twelve factors to be considered in calculating a fee award.3 The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has consistently refined calculation of awards of attorneys’ fees to comport with decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Norman v. Housing Authority, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir.1988). Norman adopted the lodestar approach for calculating attorneys’ fees. The lodestar approach presumptively incorporates the twelve factors adopted in Johnson, 488 F.2d 714 . Norman, 836 F.2d at 1298-99 . The Eleventh Circuit applies the lodestar approach of Norman in determining a reasonable attorneys’ fee. See Camden I Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 772 (11th Cir.1991); see also Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562 , 112 S.Ct. 2638 , 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992). Simply stated, the lodestar is the product of the number of reasonable hours expended and the reasonable hourly rate. Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 559-60 , 112 S.Ct. 2638 , 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992) citing Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565 , 106 S.Ct. 3088 , 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986). “The lodestar approach also governs the attorneys’ fees analysis under fee-shifting statutes. City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 561-62 , 112 S.Ct. 2638 , 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992) (lodestar f”
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.