Hadix v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
65 F.3d 532 · 1995
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably Bill Martin Director Michigan Department of Correctionss v. Everett Hadix (1999), Adcock-Ladd v. Secretary of Treasury (2000)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. Agyei · City of Burlington v. Dague · Wright v. Wright
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because of `the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters,' an award of attorneys' fees under § 1988 is entitled to substantial deference.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hadix v. Johnson · Tahfs v. Proctor“Wdien fees are sought for an out-of-town specialist, courts must determine (1) whether hiring the out-of-town specialist was reasonable in the first instance, and (2) whether the rates sought by the out-of-town specialist are reasonable for an attorney of his or her degree of skill, experience, and reputation. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760, 768-69 (7th Cir.1982); Maceira v. Pagan, 698 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.1983). A corollary of this rule is that judges may question the reasonableness of an out-of-town attorney’s billing rate if there is reason to believe that competent counsel was readily available locally at a lower charge or rate. Chrapliwy, 670 F.2d at 769 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[attorney fees under § 1988 are to be based on market rates for the services rendered. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 283 [, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 2469 , 105 L.Ed.2d 229 ] (1989). Ordinarily, courts look. to “[rates] prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Blum [v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 ,] 896 n. 11[, 104 S.Ct. 1541 , 1547 n. 11, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 ] [ (1984) ]; see also American Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO Local 3882 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 944 F.2d 922, 937 (D.C.Cir.1991) (a reasonable fee equates to a market-rate fee).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hadix v. Johnson
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.