Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 740 F.2d 210 - Gingras v. Lloyd

Gingras v. Lloyd’s Empirical Analysis

740 F.2d 210 · 1984

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
January 2002
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2002 · most notably Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School District (1989), Dague v. City of Burlington (1991)

9 federal appellate · 4 district ·

240198419902000decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Maher v. Gagne · Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison · Gagne v. Maher · McCann v. Coughlin

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.

  1. “[t]he thread common to all of these interpretations of “prevailing” is that the plaintiff has achieved some vindication of his rights as a result of the lawsuit. If, however, the lawsuit results in no recognition, either by the court in a ruling or by the defendant in words or actions, that any right of the plaintiff has been violated or jeopardized by the defendants it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff has prevailed. The mere fact that a plaintiff may be reassured as a result of his lawsuit would not make him a prevailing party. We see no indication that Congress intended that fees be awarded to a plaintiff whose complaint was dismissed and who obtained only benefits that the defendant plainly would have conferred even in the absence of a lawsuit.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [ 29 U.S.C.A. § 790 et seq.], or other Federal statutes protecting the rights of children and youth with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (b)(2) and (c) of this section shall be exhausted to the same extent as would be required had the action been brought under this sub-chapter.””
    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.