Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 460 F.3d 1253 - Trustees of Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust

Trustees of Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
4
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

7 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Valentine v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co. (2011), Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department v. Yeghiazarian (2013)

7 district · 4 state decisions

220200620102020decided

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 · Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. Agyei · West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey · Ed. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., a Corporation, Richard A. Perkins, Counsel for Ed Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., a Corporation, H. O'Neil Shanks, and Norman Stevans, Richard A. Perkins, Counsel For · Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles

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

  1. “If the attorney’s hourly rate already incorporates the cost of work performed by non-attorneys, then courts should not compensate for these costs as an additional reasonable attorney’s fee. The key ... is the billing custom in the relevant market. Thus, fees for work performed by non-attorneys such as paralegals may be billed separately, at market rates, if this is the prevailing practice in a given community. Indeed, even purely clerical or secretarial work is compensable if it is customary to bill such work separately, though such tasks should not be billed at the paralegal rate, regardless of who performs them.... [T]he district court may properly insist that the [moving party] show that it is the custom in the relevant community to bill separately for work performed by the non-attorneys at issue ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the research cost is in fact paid by the firm to a third-party provider and is customarily charged by the firm to its clients as a separate disbursement”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the prevailing practice in a given community for lawyers to bill those costs separately from their hourly rates”
    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.