Wehr v. Burroughs Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently November 2003 · most notably Wehr v. Burroughs Corp. (1980), Kelly v. American Standard, Inc. (1981)
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1921 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Lorillard v. Pons · Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Phila. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. · Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. · Prandini v. National Tea Co.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In calculating the first part of the “lodestar”, the Third Circuit has made it clear that the district court is required to determine “not only the number of hours actually devoted to the successful claims, but also whether it was reasonably necessary to spend that number of hours in order to perform the legal services for which compensation is sought.” Hughes v. Repko, 578 F.2d 483, 487 (3d Cir.1978). The petitioners bear the burden of showing that the number of hours attributable to the pursuit of the successful claim was “reasonably necessary.” Id. The petitioners have submitted to us records demonstrating the number of hours actually spent by the Dilworth firm and the Cohen firm in pursuit of this claim. These figures were maintained contemporaneously, and there is no reason to doubt their accuracy. However, it is much more difficult for us to determine whether or not petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating that these hours were reasonably necessary in the pursuit of this claim. In view of the submissions made by the petitioners, it is abundantly clear that the standards set out in Lindy I, Lindy II, and cases following are more easily stated than applied. For example, in the case at hand, petitioners submitted an Affidavit in Support of Application for Allowance of Attor ney’s Fees and Costs. This affidavit contained a breakdown of the number of hours billed by attorneys, law clerks, and paralegals at the Cohen firm, and the billing rates for each. In addition”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e are required to examine the documentation which has been submitted and make whatever reasonable determinations are possible. Although these “educated guesses” may lack ... exactitude ... we do not believe that petitioners can validly object since their failure to provide complete, detailed documentation is the direct cause of that inexactitude. Furthermore, we believe that estimates, no matter how inexact, based upon documentary evidence are preferable to ... “across-the-board” percentage reductions”
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.