66 Md. App. 655 - Head v. Head’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably 205 Ill. App. 3d 273 - In Re Marriage of Malec (1990), 409 Pa. Super. 132 - Eckell v. Wilson (1991)
2 district · 27 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 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hall v. State · 58 Md. App. 308 - Holston v. Holston · BD. OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY v. Spitz · Danziger v. Danziger · 33 Md. App. 73 - Foster v. Foster
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; .(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he fee was not directly related by percentage or formula to the amount recovered or protected. Additionally, it failed to meet the generally accepted twofold purpose of a contingent fee. Not only could the parties clearly afford to retain the services of counsel on a fixed fee or hourly rate, but the successful resolution of the claim ... would not produce a res out of which the fee could be paid. There could be no res produced. The funds at issue were already in possession. It was the shielding of those funds from appellant’s claim that was at issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While time is one of the applicable factors, the record need not contain evidence specifically delineating the number of hours spent by counsel. Because the record itself discloses the nature of the proceedings, it is some evidence of the extent of the attorney’s efforts. Given this evidence, the chancellor may rely upon his own knowledge and experience in appraising the value of an attorney’s services.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.