Grissom v. Mills Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
549 F.3d 313 · 2008
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Robinson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC (2009), Simmons v. United Mortgage & Loan Investment, LLC (2011)
7 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
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 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (§ 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Blanchard v. Bergeron
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage“[DJetermination of the hourly rate will generally be the critical inquiry in setting the reasonable fee, and the burden rests with the fee applicant to establish the reasonableness of a requested rate. In addition to the attorney’s own affidavits, the fee applicant must produce satisfactory specific evidence of the prevailing market rates in the relevant community for the type of work for which he seeks an award. Although the determination of a market rate in the legal profession is inherently problematic, as wide variations in skill and reputation render the usual laws of supply and demand largely inapplicable, the Court has nonetheless emphasized that market rate should guide the fee inquiry.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“attorneys in the Eastern District of Virginia of similar skill and for similar work.”); Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Jim’s Motorcycle, 381 F.Supp.2d 499, 505 (E.D.Va.2005) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.