346 F. Supp. 2d 840 - Doe v. Chao’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 2607 · 12 U.S.C. § 3417 · 15 U.S.C. § 298 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 13981 (§ 40302 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 7607 · 5 U.S.C. § 504 (Equal Access to Justice Act)
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Perrin v. United States
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“nothing more than a restatement of the [Government's] previous argument that since Doe failed to recover actual damages ... he is not entitled to an award of costs and attorneys' fees. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Doe v. Chao“reads `reasonable' attorneys' fees as requiring that a party achieve some success on the merits before he can recover.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Doe v. Chao
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.