Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 461 F. Supp. 293 - Wainwright v. Allen

461 F. Supp. 293 - Wainwright v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
July 1984
most recently cited

1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))

Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · United States of America, Appellant-Appellee v. City of Black Jack, Missouri, Appellee-Appellant · Carrion v. Yeshiva University · D. C. Williams Et Ux. v. The Matthews Company · Ferdinand D. Wharton, Jr. v. Frances N. Knefel

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

  1. “the traditional American rule allow[s] a prevailing party attorneys’ fees when his opponent has litigated “in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” ... Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975).... [T]he common law rule depends almost solely on actual bad faith, either in the purpose or the conduct of the litigation. Likewise, most suits awarding attorneys’ fees to defendants under the statutes [such as 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ] have involved malicious litigation, e.g., Carrion v. Yeshiva University, 585 F.2d 722 (2d Cir.1976) (the plaintiff’s testimony was characterized as an “unmitigated tissue of lies” by the trial judge), or vexatious conduct of a plaintiff in the course of the litigation, e.g., Robinson v. KMOX-TV CBS Television Station, 407 F.Supp. 1272 (E.D.Mo.1975).”
    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.