Ferdinand D. Wharton, Jr. v. Frances N. Knefel’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.2d 550 · 1977
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Hanrahan v. Hampton (1980), Hampton v. Hanrahan (1979)
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 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
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. In any section or proceeding to enforce a provision of Sections 1983 . of this title . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“with applicable law. See n.2 supra. 6 The district court concluded that plaintiffs had not carried their burden under § 1617 of establishing the necessity of this suit, apparently because the court was not convinced that plaintiffs could not have accomplished the same results by pursuing available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 12 No similar additional burden of proof is placed on prevailing plaintiffs under § 1988. Indeed, the burden is quite the opposite: a party seeking to enforce the rights protected by the statutes mentioned in § 1988, if he prevails,”
2 later decisions 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.