Lipscomb v. Wise’s Empirical Analysis
643 F.2d 319 · 1981
Citation profile
24 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2008 · most notably Evans v. Jeff D. Ex Rel. Johnson (1986), United States v. City of Miami (1981)
24 federal appellate ·
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 Baker v. Carr · Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Linda R. S. v. Richard D. · Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ordinarily, an appeal from a judgment may be taken only by a party-litigant adversely affected by it. In theory, attorneys for a litigant are not personally affected by a judgment. Even in the limited class of cases in which attorney’s fees may be awarded, the award is made to the prevailing party, not to counsel. However, as a practical matter, the , lawyer is frequently the only person adversely affected when attorney’s fees are denied. An indigent client has no real financial interest in whether his attorney is awarded fees. If the client is not indigent, the attorney may ■ still be the party aggrieved in fact, if the client’s net recovery is not affected by the amount allowed for fees. When they are the real parties in interest, attorneys are entitled to a day in court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Price v. Pelka
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.