Nilsen v. York County’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 1623 · 28 U.S.C. § 2678 · 31 U.S.C. § 3721 · 38 U.S.C. § 1984 · 38 U.S.C. § 5904 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 50 U.S.C. § 4144
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air · City of Burlington v. Dague
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not a rule of law or even a principle. Instead, it allows uncabined discretion to the fee awarding judge. A judge who likes lawyers and remembers the hazards of practice can be generous; a judge who cares more about public reaction or who never used contingent fees in practice can be stingy. It is difficult to contradict the judge’s statement about the case’s complexity or lack thereof, the difficulties of discovery, the quality of lawyering, etc. These are all highly subjective judgments.”
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.