Priestley v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
651 F.3d 410 · 2011
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1654 · 28 U.S.C. § 2071 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments) · 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Pierce v. Underwood · Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co · Bank of Marin v. England · Sperry v. State of Florida the Florida Bar
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress designed the exceptions to the mandatory award of fees and expenses to prevailing parties as a safety valve that would insure that the Government is not deterred from advancing in good faith the novel but credible extensions and interpretations of law that often underlie vigorous enforcement efforts and that would provide district courts with discretion to deny awards where equitable considerations dictate an award should not be made.”
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.