Democratic Central Committee of District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission Dc’s Empirical Analysis
38 F.3d 603 · 1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2012
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
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 Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. · Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Landry · Buchanan v. Warley · Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment · Hernandez v. New York
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny interest that petitioners’ attorneys may have had in receiving fees from the Riders’ Fund must have been created by the Court. In common fund cases, it is not the creation of the fund itself that entitles the attorneys to be paid from the fund. Rather, any obligation that the fund incurs to pay attorneys’ fees must result from the exercise of the court’s inherent equitable power to assess fees against those who stand to ultimately benefit from the fund_ The parties to the litigation simply do not have the power to assess attorneys’ fees against the fund.... Because attorneys must rely upon the court’s power to assess fees against a common fund, any property interest that the attorneys may have in being paid from the common fund is necessarily limited by the court’s exercise of that power.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Generally, when a government entity acts to create property rights yet retains the power to alter those rights, the property right is not considered `private property,' and the exercise of the retained power is not considered a `taking' for Fifth Amendment purposes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“only as a reasonable proportion of the amount actually collected . . . for which petitioners' attorneys were responsible,”
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.