Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 486 F. Supp. 2d 1005 - Agster v. Maricopa County

486 F. Supp. 2d 1005 - Agster v. Maricopa County’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

2 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Blanchard v. Bergeron · West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey

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

  1. “In West Virginia Univ. Hosp. Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 102 , 111 S.Ct. 1138 , 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991), the Supreme Court concluded that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 conveys no authority to shift expert fees in civil rights cases to the losing party. Prevailing parties therefore cannot recover more than the witness fee provided in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821 for testifying experts and can recover nothing for services rendered by experts in a non-testimonial capacity. Gates [v. Deukmejian ] 987 F.2d [1392,] 1407 [ (9th Cir.1992) ]. After Casey , Congress amended [Section] 1988 to specifically provide for the recovery of expert fees in cases brought to enforce a provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 or 1981a.' 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (c); Padro v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 100 F.Supp.2d 99, 109 (D.Puerto Rico. 2000). Congress could have amended [Section] 1988 to allow for expert fees in all cases covered by § 1988(b), but did not. The Casey decision therefore stands with regard to [Section] 1983 cases. See Jenkins v. Missouri, 158 F.3d 980, 983 (8th Cir.1998).”
    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.