Teitelbaum v. Sorenson’s Empirical Analysis
648 F.2d 1248 · 1981
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Cunningham v. County of Los Angeles (1988), Herrington v. County of Sonoma (1989)
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 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 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Hutto v. Finney · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Michel v. United States
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fee awards should be the rule rather than the exception.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“attorney fees awards are not designed to penalize defendants, but are rather to encourage injured individuals to seek judicial relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the appellees mean this fact to show that they acted in good faith — that they felt obliged to withhold the funds and obliged to contest the Coalition’s suit — we agree that they may have had good-faith reasons for their acts, but that is no reason to deny the Coalition attorney’s fees. The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act is not meant as a ‘punishment’ for ‘bad’ defendants who resist plaintiffs’ claims in bad faith. Rather, it is meant to compensate civil rights attorneys who bring civil rights cases and win them. The need for such law suits, and such payment, may well be greatest in just those instances in which lawyers and officials, in totally good faith, have opposing views about what state and federal law requires of them.””
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.