Schlesinger v. Teitelbaum’s Empirical Analysis
475 F.2d 137 · 1973
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Eash v. Riggins Trucking Inc. (1985), Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc. (1979)
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
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 Link v. Wabash Railroad · In Re Peterson · Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. · Garrett v. Co · Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n its supervisory power over the members of its bar, a court has jurisdiction of certain activities of such members, including the charges of contingency fees.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kirk Mitzel Janet Mitzel, H/w v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Dravo Corporation Dick Corporation Cortec Industries, Inc., T/a, D/B/A Inland Buildings Davy McKee Corporation, T/a, D/B/A Davy Dravo Dravo Engineering Companies, Inc. Cortec Industries, Inc., T/a, D/B/A Summit Buildings S.B. Acquisition Company, T/a, D/B/A Summit Buildings, Dick Corporation Dravo Corporation, Third-Party v. A.C. Dellovade, Inc. Davy McKee Corporation, T/a, D/B/A Davy Dravo, Third-Party Kirk Mitzel and Janet Mitzel, by and With Their Attorneys, a Dragon Associates · In Re Goldstein“The sum determined to be a reasonable attorney's fee is within the discretion of the district court; before a reviewing court should disturb the holding there should be a clear showing that the trial judge abused his discretion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On the facts presented by this record, we hold that petitioners cannot rely simply on an allegation of the existence of a contingent fee agreement, which may have been dated after the establishment of the [district court's fee schedule], to nullify such guidelines as `discriminatory, ultra vires and violative of due process' as a denial of petitioners' contract rights.”
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.