Daly v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
790 F.2d 1071 · 1986
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 23 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 203 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Medical Center, Inc. (2002), National Wildlife Federation v. Hanson (1988)
58 federal appellate · 23 district · 13 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. § 1920 · 30 U.S.C. § 921 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Blum v. Stenson · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 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 203 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases.”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[a] fee based upon reasonable rates and hours is presumed to be fully compensatory without producing a windfall.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“While the Supreme Court continues to endorse use of the Johnson factors in calculating fee awards the Court has disapproved of the procedure endorsed by this court in Anderson. Out of a concern that upward adjustments of a lodestar figure can sometimes result in “double counting,” the Court has suggested that most Johnson factors are appropriately considered in initially determining the lodestar figure, not in adjusting that figure upward. According to the Court, the critical inquiry in determining reasonableness [of a fee award] is now generally recognized as the appropriate hourly rate. If the hourly rate is properly calculated, the product of reasonable hours times the reasonable rate normally provides a reasonable attorney’s fee within the meaning of § 1988.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.