Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,510’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
17 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably 82 Cal. App. 4th 19 - Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2000), 168 Ill. 2d 235 - Brundidge v. Glendale Federal Bank, F.S.B. (1995)
17 district · 11 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Blum v. Stenson · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the time and labor involved; (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) any prearranged fee — this is helpful but not determinative; (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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A. Most closely approaches the methodology actually employed in the market place for services in a case of this nature; B. Because it matches the marketplace, it provides incentive for counsel to pursue actions of this nature on behalf of large groups; C. Is less subjective than the lodestar plus multiplier approach; D. Properly gives primary consideration to the result achieved, which was the goal of attorney and client, rather than to time-spent; E. Encourages and rewards efficiency on the part of counsel and does not reward counsel for spending more time than necessary, duplicating services, and delaying the recovery for the Class; F. Most closely approximates the agreement between Class Counsel and RNC; G. Was recommended by experts called on behalf of the application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“relied upon the Supreme Court's dicta in Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 , 104 S.Ct. 1541 , 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984), in which the Court distinguished common fund from statutory fee-shifting cases, stating, "[u]n-like the calculation of attorney’s fees under the 'common fund doctrine,’ where a reasonable fee is based on a percentage of the fund bestowed on the class, a reasonable fee under [the fee-shifting statute in question] reflects the amount of attorney time reasonably expended on the litigation.” Id. 465 U.S. at 900 n. 16, 104 S.Ct. 1541 . This dicta has given comfort to those courts which prefer percentage of the fund in common fund cases.”
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.