Hooper v. Demco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
37 F.3d 287 · 1994
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2012 · most notably Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (2001), Little v. Cox's Supermarkets (1995)
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 2412 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Farrar v. Hobby · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Industries
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.
“[t]he problem with claims that are settled is that there are reasons for parties to settle that are wholly unrelated to the substance and issues involved in the litigation. A suit may be groundless, and settled for its nuisance value, or settled by a party for wholly gratuitous reasons, thus not justifying an award of attorney’s fees.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“was the losing party's position substantially justified and taken in good faith, or was that party simply out to harass its opponent?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“status. The first test looks at the following five factors: 1) the degree of the offending parties' culpability or bad faith; 2) the degree of the ability of the offending parties to satisfy personally an award of attorney's fees; 3) whether or not an award of attorney's fees against the offending parties would deter other persons acting under similar circumstances; 4) the amount of benefit conferred on members of the pension plan as a whole; and 5) the relative merits of the parties' positions. Id. The second test looks to whether or not the losing party's position was”
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.