Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 361 F.3d 96 - Green v. Torres

Green v. Torres’s Empirical Analysis

361 F.3d 96 · 2004

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Kassim v. City of Schenectady (2005), Tancredi v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (2004)

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

170200420102020decided

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 Hensley v. Eckerhart · United States v. Jacobson · Rabbi Yitzchok Leblanc-Sternberg v. Robert Fletcher, · Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co. · Webb v. Sloan

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

  1. “unrelated claims are unlikely to arise with great frequency. Many civil rights cases will present only a single claim. In other cases the plaintiffs claims for relief will involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories. Much of counsel’s time will be devoted generally to the litigation as a whole, making it difficult to divide the hours expended on a claim-by-claim basis. Such a lawsuit cannot be viewed as a series of discrete claims. Instead the district court should focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[We] specifically note that we are not endorsing a pleading judgment rule, or implying that fees may permissibly be reduced in every civil rights case where the plaintiff voluntarily abandons claims prior to a decision on the merits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Litigants in good faith may raise alternative legal grounds for a desired outcome, and the court's rejection of or failure to reach certain grounds is not a sufficient reason for reducing a fee.”
    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.