Lott v. Pfizer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.3d 789 · 2007
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2021
4 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Hunter v. Bryant · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown · Brosseau v. Haugen · Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. · Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f, at the time the defendant filed his notice in federal court, clearly established law demonstrated that he had no basis for removal, then a district court should award a plaintiff his attorneys' fees. By contrast, if clearly established law did not foreclose a defendant's basis for removal, then a district court should not award attorneys' fees.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If fee shifting were automatic, defendants might choose to exercise this right only in cases where the right to remove was obvious.”
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.