Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 525 F.3d 636 - Lash v. Hollis

Lash v. Hollis’s Empirical Analysis

525 F.3d 636 · 2008

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Farrar v. Hobby · Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison · Casey v. City of Cabool, Missouri

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

  1. “The product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate does not end the inquiry. There remain other considerations that may lead the district court to adjust the fee upward or downward, including the important factor of the “results obtained.” This factor is particularly crucial where a plaintiff is deemed “prevailing” even though he succeeded on only some of his claims for relief. In this situation two questions must be addressed. First, did the plaintiff fail to prevail on claims that were unrelated to the claims on which he succeeded? Second, did the plaintiff achieve a level of success that makes the hours reasonably expended a satisfactory basis for making a fee award?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[R]habdomyolysis [is] a condition that may occur when muscle tissue breaks down and releases substances into the bloodstream that overwhelm the kidneys. Rhabdomyolysis reportedly can be caused by many factors, including but not limited to drug use or trauma by electrical charge or physical force.”
    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.