Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 445 F.3d 407 - Camacho v. Texas Workforce Commission

Camacho v. Texas Workforce Commission’s Empirical Analysis

445 F.3d 407 · 2006

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Intercontinental Group Partnership v. KB Home Lone Star L.P. (2009), In re Fema Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation (2012)

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

150200620102020decided

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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hanna v. Plumer · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York

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

  1. “federal law, rather than state law, invariably governs procedural matters in federal courts”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The [Declaratory Judgment Act] does conflict with a federal policy, the “American Rule” that “parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney’s fees.”... In light of the American Rule, generally applied in federal court, we have been instructed that state law does not always control the issue of attorney’s fees. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 51-52 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 . Rather, we are to apply state attorney’s fee law only when it “embodfies] a substantive policy.” Id. at 52 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 . The DJA does not represent “substantive policy5’ under Chambers . The Supreme Court explained in Chambers that substantive fee-shifting statutes include those “which permit[ ] a prevailing party in certain classes of litigation to recover fees.” Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n any proceeding under this chapter, the court may award costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees as are equitable and just.”
    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.