Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 391 F.2d 670 - Redden v. Gardner

Redden v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

391 F.2d 670 · 1968

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
November 2004
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2004

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

3019681970198019902000decided

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 Mckittrick v. Gardner · Lovel Redden v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, James B. Lambert v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

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

  1. “judges should constantly remind themselves that, while the lawyer is entitled to a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by him in the judicial proceeding, these benefits are provided for the support and maintenance of the claimant and his dependents and not for the enrichment of members of the bar. Routine approval of the statutory maximum allowable fee should be avoided in all cases. In a great majority of the cases, perhaps, a reasonable fee will be much less than the statutory maximum. The statute directs a determination and allowance of a reasonable fee and the courts are responsible under the Act for seeing that unreasonably large fees in these Social Security cases are not charged or collected by lawyers.”
    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.