Gates v. Collier’s Empirical Analysis
616 F.2d 1268 · 1980
Citation profile
98 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 170 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably Library of Congress v. Shaw (1986), Berger v. Heckler (1985)
98 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1464 (Consumer Home Mortgage Assistance Act of 1974) · 12 U.S.C. § 1786 · 12 U.S.C. § 1818 · 12 U.S.C. § 2607 · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15C · 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (§ 130 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1667B (§ 183 of the Truth in Lending Act)
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Hutto v. Finney
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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]here a state expresses its unwillingness to comply with a valid judgment of a federal district court, the court may use any of the weapons generally at its disposal to ensure compliance.... ‘The issue here is not one of judicial confrontation with the state. It is one of implementation of a Congressional mandate’ ... The italicized words provide the key. Congress has declared that states and their officials who violate federal civil rights laws must reimburse the successful plaintiff for costs incurred in seeking redress. To strike down the order in this case because it conflicts with the laws of Mississippi would be no different than reversing a bare judgment for attorney’s fees. In either case, we would be allowing the state by legislative action, to recloak itself with the Eleventh Amendment immunity which Congress has chosen to remove. Such a result would be contrary to the command of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution(latter emphasis added)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spain v. Mountanos · Duran v. Lamm“In analyzing the nature of the interest award, it must be understood that the awarding of interest is in no sense a windfall. Because a dollar today is worth more than a dollar in the future, “the only way [a party] can be made whole is to award him interest from the time he should have received the money. [Citation omitted] Indeed, this case dramatizes the need for interest on attorneys’ fees if the attorneys for the prevailing party are to be adequately compensated. Most of the fees at issue in this case were awarded in 1973. Because of inflation, these awards are worth far less today than they were seven years ago. Had the awards been made in 1973, the attorneys could have been drawing interest on the amount for the last seven years.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he legislative history of § 1988 emphasizes the need in civil rights cases for adequate attorneys’ fee awards. On the other hand, there is nothing in the legislative history of § 1988 which even remotely suggests that the treatment of out-of-pocket costs should in any way change as a result of the enactment of § 1988. While we sympathize with Appellees' claim for interest on costs, we believe that Congress must provide at least some indication of its intent to abrogate the traditional rule against awarding interest on out-of-pocket costs, or at least express a strong and clear intent that costs, like attorneys’ fees, must be liberally awarded to ensure effective enforcement of the civil rights laws.”
3 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.