Rev. Frank D. Lovell v. Linwood Snow, Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
637 F.2d 170 · 1981
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2006 · most notably Kay v. Ehrler (1991), Poythress v. Kessler (1986)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Nationwide Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Sampson · Rheuark v. Shaw · Gore v. Turner · Ruth M. Sargeant v. Alexander E. Sharp, II
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We have recently held that attorney fees may not be awarded to pro se plaintiffs pursuant to the attorney fee provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (a)(4)(E). Crooker v. United States Department of Justice, 632 F.2d 916, 920-22 (1st Cir. 1980). Our starting point there, as here, was the intent of Congress. We identified the dominant purpose of the FOIA’s attorney fee provision as the removal of ‘the obstacle of attorney fees [so that] all litigants have “ ‘access to the courts to vindicate their statutory rights.’ ” [Citation omitted.] Precisely the same policy lay behind the enactment of the Civil Right Attorney’s Fee Awards Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . [Citations omitted.] In light of this identity of statutory policies, the reasoning which we set forth in Crooker, supra, 632 F.2d at 920-22 , fully applies in the case of a pro se plaintiff’s request for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 . It need not be repeated here.””
1 later decision 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.