Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 354 FSUPP 291 - Sanborn v. Wagner

Sanborn v. Wagner’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
July 1992
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 1992

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

200197319801990decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3612 (§ 812 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))

Relies on Bell v. Hood · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. · Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. · Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen v. Southern Railway Co.

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““. . . While the Court does not dispute this accounting, nevertheless the focus is upon the time and effort which would reasonably be required for the prosecution of this type of action. In the non-jury trial of this case which lasted approximately four hours, Plaintiff produced only three witnesses, including the Plaintiff herself, whose testimony, when measured against that of the Defendants’ witnesses, merely presented a simple and factually rooted issue of witness credibility. No legal questions arose in the course of the proceedings which, in the opinion of the Court, required any special knowledge of the law. . this Court can only base its finding of reasonable attorneys’ fees upon the work reflected by the pleadings, trial presentation and the research efforts properly to be inferred from what has actually been presented to the Court. After careful consideration, the Court finds that $750.00 constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee in this case.””
    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.