Knop v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2008
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1821 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · City of Riverside v. Rivera · Crawford Fitting Company v. Jt Gibbons Inc Champion International Corporation · Smith v. Robinson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A fee applicant cannot demand a high hourly rate — which is based upon his or her experience, reputation, and a presumed familiarity with the applicable law — and then run up an inordinate amount of time researching the same law. Double dipping, in any form, cannot be condoned. Knop v. Johnson, 712 F.Supp. 571, 578 (W.D.Mich.1989)(quoting Ursic v. Bethlehem Mines, 719 F.2d 670, 677 (3d Cir.1983)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to convince counsel in private practice to accept cases of this nature, the fee awards must ... be sufficient to convince them to forego fees they would have earned from their regular clients....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the complexity of the issues involved, the potential for protracted litigation and the massive expenses which counsel would have to advance in order to properly litigate this case.”
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.