Bunn v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2008
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · United States v. Testan · United States v. Sherwood · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The amount of fees awarded under this subsection shall be based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished except that ... attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $75 per hour unless the Court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved justifies a higher fee. (underscoring ours) 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(2)(A).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In ascertaining which hours reported were reasonably expended, and thus billable, the court must examine the total number of hours reported by each lawyer, the hours allotted to specific tasks, whether those tasks would normally be billed to a paying client, and the potential duplication of services, particularly where multiple lawyers are involved. These determinations must be made in the context of the specific case at bar; what is reasonable in one case may be unreasonable in another. The reasonableness of the hours expended in a particular case depends upon the complexity of the case, the number of reasonable strategies pursued, and the responses necessitated by the tactics of the opponent. Finally, the court must weigh the hours claimed against its own knowledge, experience, and expertise of the time required to complete similar activities. In sum, the court must carefully scrutinize the total number of hours reported by the fee applicant to arrive at the number of hours that can fairly and reasonably be charged to the losing party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the issues addressed in plaintiffs brief were complex, of some considerable length, or the law was in flux, such an expenditure of time might well be justified. However, this is not the ease. The issues were clear, the administrative record was markedly deficient, and the result nearly pre-ordained by precedent. ... Over the course of the last few years, the court has had occasion to view applications for attorneys’ fees in social security cases too numerous to count, and never has any counsel requested 51 hours of compensable time for such an equivalent task.”
1 later decision 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.