565 So. 2d 585 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

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

1. “'The fact that this suit has not yet produced, and may never produce, a monetary recovery from which the fees could be paid does not preclude an award based on this rationale. Although the earliest cases recognizing a right to reimbursement involved litigation that had produced or preserved a”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Bd. of Educ. v. Waldrop · James v. Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc.

2. “"Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court insofar as it denies the relief sought by the plaintiffs on behalf of Subclass B. They have not shown that the convictions should be vacated, nor have they shown that the fines paid should be returned. The plaintiffs have, however, made a significant contribution to the integrity of our system of jurisprudence in calling attention to a serious flaw in its administration. They have done more in that regard to advance the cause of justice than vacating the judgments of the class members would achieve. We are informed by counsel on both sides of this case that because of this and similar litigation, the practice has been discontinued and that now the officers issuing the UTTC's appear before a judge or magistrate and swear on oath to the charges made therein. We hold that the judgments are not due to be vacated; we also hold that under well settled principles of law, the fines cannot be recovered. However the plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown · Calhoun County Com'n v. Hooks

3. “"The Supreme Court remanded this cause to this Court with instructions to determine the amount of an attorney fee to be awarded in this case from the State of Alabama according to the following guidelines, which it listed in no particular order: "(1) The measure of success achieved. "(2) The nature and value of the subject matter of the attorney's employment, including the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented. "(3) The learning, skill, and labor requisite to perform the legal service properly. "(4) The time consumed and reasonable expenses incurred by the attorney. "(5) The professional experience, reputation and ability of the attorney. "(6) The weight of his responsibility. "(7) The fee arrangement between attorney and client, including whether a fee was fixed or contingent. "(8) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services and awards in similar cases. "(9) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances. "(10) The likelihood that the attorney's employment in this case precluded other employment. "(11) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. "(12) The undesirability of the case. "(13) Any non-monetary benefits conferred upon the class in this class action. "and the Supreme Court directed that this Court review the following cases in connection with the determination of an attorney fee: Reynolds v. First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A., 471 So.2d 1238 (Ala.1983), Peebles v. Miley, 439 ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown · Perdue ex rel. Perdue v. Green