Cooper v. Singer’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 1496 · 1983
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023 · most notably Blanchard v. Bergeron (1989), Evans v. Jeff D. Ex Rel. Johnson (1986)
46 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Carey v. Piphus · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he approach set forth in Hensley ... [provides] incentives for meritorious civil rights litigation. It instructs a lawyer to critically evaluate the prospects for success in each potnetial ... claim, and it encourages the lawyer to proceed only with those claims that are indeed meritorious.” Id. at 1466, quoting Cooper v. Singer, 719 F.2d 1496, 1502 (10th Cir.1983). (Emphasis in original.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Courts can open their doors to the public, but they must rely on lawyers to guide the litigant through the passageways. In entrusting the litigant to the legal profession, courts recognize the possibility that a self-serving lawyer may ignore the best interests of the courts and his clients. Attentive to the demands of the public interest, courts retain supervisory power over the attorney-client relationship. Fees are central to that relationship, and contingent fee arrangements are therefore subject to the courts’ supervision.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The issue then is not whether we can restrict a client's fee obligation in light of the apparent congressional intent of section 1988; rather, the issue is whether we should.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. 39 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1029, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,895 Joe Vernon Sears, an Individual, in Person, and for All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Albert L. Bennett, C.J. Skelton, Archie N. Jones, Forest D. Tollett, John W. Landrum, Lawson C. Spencer, Thomas H. White, Earlie Nash, Aubrey A. Robinson, Edward Rawlins, John W. Cole, Charles Majors, Jr., Jesse J. Smith, Paul H. Stewart, Jimmy E. Brown, Carl E. Chester, Ray E. Landrum, Raymond Wiley, Eglieelgie Crow and Ellis Johnson, Criscel Kemp, A.M. Bennett, A.L. Woolfolk, T.C. Luckey and W.W. Seymour, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, Mildred Collins, of the Estate of James Collins, Jr., Deceased, Terry G. Paup, Individually and on His Own Behalf v. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, United Transportation Union, Successor to Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, a Labor Organization · 631 F. Supp. 1050 - City Consumer Services Inc. v. Horne
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.