Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 690 F.2d 376 - Allen v. Burke

Allen v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis

690 F.2d 376 · 1982

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

1701982199020002010decided

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

Relies on Imbler v. Pachtman · Gerstein v. Pugh · Pierson v. Ray · Stump v. Sparkman · Hutto v. Finney

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at the outset of litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The district court initially should multiply the number of hours reasonably expended (“time and labor expended”) by the customary hourly rate (“customary fee for like work”) to establish a preliminary amount for the fee award. The court then should consider the other factors and adjust the fee accordingly.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'is within the judicial discretion of the trial judge who has close and intimate knowledge of the efforts expended and the value of the services rendered. And an appellate court is not warranted in overturning the trial court's judgment unless under all the facts and circumstances it is clearly wrong.'”
    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.