Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 450 U.S. 1012 - Alioto Et Al. v. Williams Et Al.

Alioto Et Al. v. Williams Et Al.’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

301
cited by 301 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

163 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 301 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably 43 Cal. 3d 1281 - Maria P. v. Riles (1987), Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc. (1985)

163 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

17701981199020002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. · Williams v. Alioto · Joseph B. Williams and Leo Bazille v. Joseph L. Alioto

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

  1. “in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “To treat respondents as 'prevailing parties' under Sec. 1988 because they secured a preliminary injunction is to ignore the fact that petitioners exercised their right to appeal the entry of that order and the fact that the propriety of the injunction was being challenged on appeal at the time the case became moot and the appeal dismissed. No permanent injunction ever issued and there has been no settlement or consent decree.... Exposure of any party to [liability for his opponent's attorney's fees] when mootness deprives him of the appeal authorized by law which he had already initiated should result only from a clear authorization by Congress or settled precedent of this Court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.