Coalition for Basic Human Needs v. King’s Empirical Analysis
691 F.2d 597 · 1982
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 9 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin (1984), Langton v. Johnston (1991)
46 federal appellate · 9 district · 12 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
Relies on Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Hanrahan v. Hampton · Harris v. McRae · Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison · Alioto Et Al. v. Williams Et Al.
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if [he or she] succeed[s] on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit ... sought in bringing suit.” Id. at 433 (citation omitted). The county maintains that J.S.’s death precluded him from reaping any”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of section [] ... 1983 ..., the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In all these ‘denial’ cases, the ‘interlocutory’ victory is far more distant from substantive relief on the merits than in the case before us. In some of them, the interlocutory ‘victory’ was purely procedural rather than substantive; in others the preliminary relief, although substantive, did not determine the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim and provide affirmative relief, but only maintained the status quo without purporting to address the merits; in still others, further litigation on the merits remained to be conducted or had been conducted to the ultimate detriment of the plaintiffs.”
2 later decisions 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.