Becker v. Huss Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 3 district · 26 state decisions

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

1. “" Section 29 of the Workers' Compensation Law governs the rights and obligations of employees, their dependents, and compensation carriers with respect to actions arising out of injuries caused by third-party tort-feasors. A claimant has the first right to bring a third-party action, and, while undertaking such an action, may continue to receive compensation benefits ( Workers' Compensation Law, § 29, subd 1 ). In the event that a claimant recovers in a third-party action, the compensation carrier is granted a lien on the amount of the recovery proceeds equal to the amount of past compensation it has paid, with interest ( id. ). The ** lien, however, is subordinate to a deduction for costs and attorney's fees ( id. ). The statute was amended in 1975 ( see L 1975, ch 190) to also provide: 'Should the employee or his dependents secure a recovery from [a third party], whether by judgment, settlement or otherwise, such employee or dependents may apply on notice to such lienor to the court in which the third party action was instituted, or to a court of competent jurisdiction if no action was instituted, for an order apportioning the reasonable and necessary expenditures, including attorney's fees, incurred in effecting * such recovery. Such expenditures shall be equitably apportioned by the court between the employee or his dependents and the lienor' ( Workers' Compensation Law, § 29, subd 1 ) ... The impetus for amending the law to provide for allocation of litigation costs betw”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Terranova v. Lehr Constr. Co.

2. “It does not follow, however, that standardized fees in personal injury cases should be ignored or that, except in the rare case, the lawyer’s fees should be determined on quantum meruit. That would be unrealistic. Instead, so long as the court weighs variable and distinguishing factors, which might suggest departure from the retainer or standardized fees set by local custom or court rule, standardized fees may be used. Such factors might include the reasonableness of the lawyer’s retainer and whether it was improperly influenced by the expectation that the lienor would be sharing in the burden of that fee, the fact that recovery was unusually simple or liability especially clear, and any other equitable circumstances. The practical advantage in limiting or even eliminating hearings on the applications is evident.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 480 F. Supp. 716 - O'CONNOR v. Lee-Hy Paving Corp.