Wojtkowski v. Cade’s Empirical Analysis
725 F.2d 127 · 1984
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 21 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Freeman v. Package Machinery Co. (1988), Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin (1984)
51 federal appellate · 21 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison · United States Steel Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · Ramos v. Lamm · King v. Greenblatt
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Plaintiff] claim[s] that he was entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount allowed, by the Court as attorney’s fee under § 1988 has even less force. Section 1988 does not refer to interest, nor has our attention been drawn to any federal statute that calls for pre-judgment interest in this particular context.... The district court did not err in denying [plaintiffs] request for pre-judgment interest on his attorney’s fee award.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he Court, moreover, may bring to its knowledge and experience concerning both the cost of attorneys in its market area and the time demands of the particular case. If the time and fee claimed by the prevailing party are out of line, the Court may ‘shave’ either or both.” 5”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“all claims, both federal and state, were sent to the jury together, resulting in a general verdict,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.