Pontarelli v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2016
2 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Hughes v. Rowe · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the prevailing defendant could be awarded fees ... against the plaintiff whose suit was brought in good faith, but only 'upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.' "). 28 Although we have found that the district court's determination that the action was frivolous is supported, our inquiry is not over. The transcript of the argument on the attorney's fee motion indicates that the district court was troubled with the prospect of awarding defendants their fees, and found the decision to do so "distasteful.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Q. Do you recall my asking you ... “why didn’t you allocate? Isn’t it because you thought the Court was wrong in asking you to do that? Or did you forget to allocate, or what?” And you answered “I don’t know if I like the ‘or what’ ”. [[Image here]] “Question: Could it be that you forgot the Court told you to do it? Answer: It could be. It could also be I didn’t have time. It could also be a number of reasons”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matter of Schiff““The summary of time and charges for my services attached hereto present an accurate statement of services performed in connection with this litigation and was prepared from contemporaneous time records and with respect to sums for costs and expenses from accounting records.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matter of Schiff
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.