In the Matter of Bobby Cahill Janice Cahills Walker & Patterson Pc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably In Re Brent (2011), Cadle Co. v. Pratt (2008)
11 federal appellate · 2 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 11 U.S.C. § 330
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · In the Matter of First Colonial Corp. Of America, Bankrupt. American Benefit Life Insurance Company, Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. Franz J. Baddock, Trustee, Appellee-Cross-Appellant. In the Matter of First Colonial Corp. Of America, Bankrupt. Bert K. Robinson v. American Benefit Life Insurance Company · Shipes v. Trinity 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the “undesirability” of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... review the bankruptcy court’s award of attorneys’ fees for abuse of discretion. In re Coho Energy, Inc., 395 F.3d 198 , 204 (5th Cir.2004); In re Barron, 325 F.3d 690, 692 (5th Cir.2003). An abuse of discretion occurs where the bankruptcy court (1) applies an improper legal standard or follows improper procedures in calculating the fee award, or (2) rests its decision on findings of fact that are clearly erroneous. In re Evangeline Refining Co., 890 F.2d 1312 , 1325 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we review the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Coho Energy, 395 F.3d at 204; Barron, 325 F.3d at 692 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) The court may, on its own motion or on the motion of the United States Trustee, the United States Trustee for the District or Region, the trustee for the estate, or any other party in interest, award compensation that is less than the amount of compensation that is requested.”
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.