Evans v. Jeff D. Ex Rel. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
358 federal appellate · 92 district · 116 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,062 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (2001), Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air (1986)
358 federal appellate · 92 district · 116 state decisions — followed in 24 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000A
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Blum v. Stenson · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Sorrells v. United States
Cited together with Hensley v. Eckerhart · Venegas v. Mitchell · Blum v. Stenson · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Marek v. Chesny
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 1,062 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the power to approve or reject a settlement negotiated by the parties before trial does not authorize the court to require the parties to accept a settlement to which they have not agreed.... Rule 23(e) does not give the court the power, in advance of trial, to modify a proposed consent decree and order its acceptance over either party's objection.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although respondents contend that Johnson, as counsel for the class, was faced with an 'ethical dilemma' when petitioners offered him relief greater than that which he could reasonably have expected to obtain for his clients at trial (if only he would stipulate to a waiver of the statutory fee award), and although we recognize Johnson's conflicting interests between pursuing relief for the class and a fee for the Idaho Legal Aid Society, we do not believe that the 'dilemma' was an 'ethical' one in the sense that Johnson had to choose between conflicting duties under the prevailing norms of professional conduct. Plainly, Johnson had no ethical obligation to seek a statutory fee award. His ethical duty was to serve his clients loyally and competently.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“promot[e] respect for civil rights.... [by adding fee awards] to the arsenal of remedies available [to a plaintiff] to combat violations of civil rights.”
9 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.