Roberson v. Giuliani’s Empirical Analysis
346 F.3d 75 · 2003
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Jane Doe v. Boston Public Schools (2004), Anderson v. Beland (2011)
36 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · Smyth ex rel. Smyth v. Rivero
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]ssentially, in order to be considered a `prevailing party' [to enable a plaintiff to take advantage of a federal fee-shifting statute] ..., a plaintiff must not only achieve some `material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties,' but that change must also be judicially sanctioned.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the standards used to interpret the term `prevailing party' under any given fee-shifting statute `are generally applicable in all cases in which Congress has authorized an award of fees to a "prevailing party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. A.R., on Behalf of Her Minor Child, R v. M.S., on Behalf of Her Minor Child, I.O., M.L., on Behalf of Her Minor Child, J.L. v. New York City Department of Education, S.W. And M.M., on Behalf of N.W. v. Board of Education of the City of New York, (District 2) · Ar Rv Ms Io Ml Jl v. New York City Department of Education Sw Mm Nw“it may thereafter enforce the terms of the parties' agreement. Its authority to do so clearly establishes a `judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties,' as required by Buckhannon , because the plaintiff thereafter may return to court to have the settlement enforced.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carbonell v. I.N.S. · Carbonell
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.