Martinez Rodriguez v. Jimenez’s Empirical Analysis
551 F.2d 877 · 1977
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer · Finney v. Hutto · 409 F. Supp. 582 - Martinez Rodriguez v. Jimenez
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e are convinced that the award of attorneys’ fees is proper under the Civil Rights Attorneys’ Fee Award Act of 1976, Pub.L.No. 94-559 (Oct. 19, 1976). This Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in an action such as this brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . . The Finney court [Finney v. Hutto, 548 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. filed January 6, 1977)] also concluded, id., at 742 , that an award of attorneys’ fees proper under the Act was not barred by the eleventh amendment, following the analysis in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 455 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (filed June 28,1976). We are in complete agreement with the above conclusions of the Finney court and the reasons stated in support thereof. The award of attorneys’ fees presently contested is accordingly proper under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 and is not barred by the eleventh amendment. 551 F.2d at 878-79 .”
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.