Miller v. Staats’s Empirical Analysis
706 F.2d 336 · 1983
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Grano v. Barry (1986), Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago (1987)
18 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 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. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Hagans v. Lavine · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Maher v. Gagne
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well recognized that the attorney fees provisions are to be liberally applied because the private plaintiff is the chosen instrument of Congress to vindicate a policy that Congress considered to be of the highest priority. District Courts, therefore, have only narrow discretion to deny fee awards....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'final result represents in a real sense, a disposition that furthers their interest.'”
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.