Premachandra v. Mitts’s Empirical Analysis
727 F.2d 717 · 1984
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably 34 Cal. 4th 553 - Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2005), Martin v. Heckler (1985)
21 federal appellate · 8 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. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Arnett v. Kennedy · Maine v. Thiboutot · Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Unless expressly prohibited by statute, a court may award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, in addition to the costs which may be awarded pursuant to subsection (a), to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States or any agency and any official of the United States act ing in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction of such action. The United States shall be liable for such fees and expenses to the same extent that any other party would be liable under the common law or under the terms of any statute which specifically provides for such an award.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“same extent that any other party would be liable under ... any statute which specifically provides for such an award,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Mr. Kastenmeier, if I could just direct myself to one portion of this bill? There is an area in which a slight drafting modification could carry out what I believe might be the intention of the committee; and that is to put the United States completely on a par as far as the enforcement of important constitutional and statutory rights. In the Civil Rights Act of 1976 you provided that when someone ... sues a State or local government under 42 United States Code, section 1983 , to vindicate a constitutional or Federal statutory right, that fees would be available under the Newman v. Peggy [Piggiel [sic ] Park standard. [The proposed amendment to § 2412 says] ... that the United States should pay fees ... in those circumstances where the court may award fees in suits involving private parties. That doesn’t say State or local government, but if the language were amended to read, “in those circumstances where the court may award such fees in suits involving other litigants”; it would achieve that purpose. And I think it would go even further toward putting the United States on a par with other governmental bodies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Curry v. Block
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.