Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 448 F.3d 795 - Saizan v. Delta Concrete Products Co.

Saizan v. Delta Concrete Products Co.’s Empirical Analysis

448 F.3d 795 · 2006

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
3
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Gagnon v. United Technisource, Inc. (2010), Black v. Settlepou, P.C. (2013)

9 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

450200620102020decided

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 Hensley v. Eckerhart · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · City of Riverside v. Rivera · Copeland v. Marshall · Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom

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

  1. “(1) the time and labor required to represent the client or clients; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the issues in the case; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney; (5) the customary fee charged for those services in the relevant community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Plaintiffs seeking attorney’s fees are charged with the burden of showing the reasonableness of the hours billed and, therefore, are also charged with proving that they exercised billing judgment. Billing judgment requires documentation of the hours charged and of the hours written off as unproductive, excessive, or redundant. The proper remedy for omitting evidence of billing judgment does not include a denial of fees but, rather, a reduction of the award by a percentage intended to substitute for the exercise of billing judgment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'a low damages award alone ... should not lead the court to reduce a fee award.'”
    2 later decisions 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.