Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 F.3d 224 - Marbley v. Bane

Marbley v. Bane’s Empirical Analysis

57 F.3d 224 · 1995

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
August 2011
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011 · most notably Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc (2000), Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (2001)

24 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions

340199520002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 8622 · 42 U.S.C. § 8624

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Edelman v. Jordan · Farrar v. Hobby · Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. · Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School District

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

  1. “[a] lawsuit sometimes produces voluntary action by the defendant that affords the plaintiff all or some of the relief he sought through a judgment — e.g., a monetary settlement or a change in the conduct that redresses the plaintiff’s grievances. When that occurs, the plaintiff is deemed to have prevailed despite the absence of a formal judgment in his favor.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A government’s change of policy or position may coincide with the interests or desires of persons who seek to promote change by litigation, without evidencing a causal connection. Certainly, governments may change a policy without paying a toll or tribute to persons who advocated that policy change in court. However, a plaintiff whose lawsuit has been the catalyst in bringing about a goal sought in litigation, by threat of victory (and not by dint of nuisance and threat of expense), has prevailed for purposes of an attorney’s fee claim, even though the result has not been reduced to a judgment, consent decree, or settlement.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that was the basis for the suit, the plaintiff will have prevailed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.