Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 769 F.2d 1404 - Hamner v. Rios

Hamner v. Rios’s Empirical Analysis

769 F.2d 1404 · 1985

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2017 · most notably Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air (1987), Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles (1986)

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

3601985199020002010decided

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. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 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 · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Gilbert v. First National Bank of Jackson · Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Dewees v. United States

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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Contingent fee agreements enable plaintiffs with meritorious claims but limited finances to obtain counsel, and they are set to account for the risk of nonrecovery. If attorneys begin to view statutory fees in civil rights cases as inadequate, use of the statutory award as a ceiling on fees could lead to a reluctance to represent civil rights plaintiffs, thus frustrating the intent of Congress.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the “undesirability” of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The decision to rely upon affidavits and the record of a case rather than conduct an evidentiary hearing on a fee petition is also reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
    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.