United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 25 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably In Re: The Prudential Insurance Company Of America Sales Practices Litigation (1998), Builders Service Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission (1988)
8 federal appellate · 25 district · 12 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
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank · Trustees v. Greenough
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our premise has been that the reasonable value of an attorney's time is the price that time normally commands in the marketplace for legal services in which those services are offered.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“measured at the point when the attorney's time was committed to the case”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 685 F. Supp. 1092 - In Re Flight Transportation Corp. Securities Litigation · Peter D. Fischel Gerald M. Geiger Philip J. Havlicek Edgar C. Chua v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, a New York Corporation, Peter D. Fischel Gerald M. Geiger Philip J. Havlicek Edgar C. Chua, Herbert Adelman Walter Fleischer Malakoff, Doyle & Finberg, P.C. Dennis J. Woodruff v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, a New York Corporation“depending upon the facts of the particular case, all or some of the above factors may bear upon the trial court's discretion in certifying a judgment as final under Rule 54(b).” Id.. In this case, the Court finds that either the aforementioned factors are not relevant, or, if relevant, weigh against entry of a Rule 54(b) final judgment. 5 . In this case, counsel has requested that the lodestar amount be enhanced by a quality multiplier of 1.632. The Court recognizes that if it did apply the lodestar method, the lodestar could be enhanced with a quality multiplier where the settlement was “achieved with unusual efficiency, and with little expenditure of attorney time and expense.”
2 later decisions 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.