Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 561 F.2d 320 - Parker v. Califano

Parker v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis

561 F.2d 320 · 1977

Citation profile

175
cited by 175 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 30 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 175 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey (1980), Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison (1978)

81 federal appellate · 30 district · 5 state decisions

91019771980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · United States v. Testan · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Bolling v. Sharpe · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

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

  1. “In any action or proceeding under this subchapter (Title VII) the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the cost, and the Commission and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Mr. President, I want to say for the record that this particular amendment language was included, as the specific provisions of the bill deal only with Federal employees for whom we had a different procedure. They go through their own agencies and then they have the right as a Federal employee to go to the civil service board or to go through the Federal court system. The amendment to strike the language was included because the language to be struck -was thought to be inappropriate to the specialized grievance procedures adopted in committee for Federal employees. A closer reading of sec. 706(g) through (w) [the provisions that would have been stricken by the proposed Dominick amendment] does indicate that language for providing attorney’s fees and waiving court costs are applicable. Therefore, I have no objection to the Senator’s amendment, and if he would want to withdraw his yea and nay request, that would be fine with me, and we can accept the amendment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “is not intended to be limited to the victor only after entry of a final judgment following a full trial on the merits.... If the litigation terminates by consent decree, for example, it would be proper to award counsel fees. Incarcerated Men of Allen County v. Fair, 507 F.2d 281 (6th Cir.1974); Parker v. Matthews, 411 F.Supp. 1059 (D.D.C.1976) [ aff'd sub nom., Parker v. Califano, 561 F.2d 320 (D.C.C.1977) ]; Aspira of New York, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 65 F.R.D. 541 (S.D.N.Y.1975). A”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.