Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 368 FSUPP3D 651 - Williams v. Epic Sec. Corp.

Williams v. Epic Sec. Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

2019

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
August 2019
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 216

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Farrar v. Hobby · Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn · Perdue v. Kenny A. Ex Rel. Winn · McNeill 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “produce[ ] an award that roughly approximates the fee that the prevailing attorney would have received if he or she had been representing a paying client who was billed by the hour in a comparable case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Local 1180, Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. City of N.Y.
  2. “may look to its own familiarity with the case and its experience generally as well as to the evidentiary submissions and arguments of the parties.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Local 1180, Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. City of N.Y.
  3. “the court takes account of claimed hours that it views as 'excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Local 1180, Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. City of N.Y.

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.