Brinker v. Guiffrida’s Empirical Analysis
798 F.2d 661 · 1986
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2012 · most notably Pierce v. Underwood (1988), Cummings v. Sullivan (1991)
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 2412
Relies on Spencer v. National Labor Relations Board · Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee · Prandini v. National Tea Co. · Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · Bagby v. Beal
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he government should not be held liable where special circumstances would make an award unjust. This “safety valve” helps to insure that the Government is not deterred from advancing in good faith the novel but credible extensions of the law that often underlie vigorous enforcement efforts. It also gives the court discretion to deny awards where equitable considerations dictate an award should not be made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hile the arguments of the parties, and any evidence introduced in the fees actions, such as affidavits, must be carefully considered, it is essentially the relevant portions of the record in the underlying action which must be examined in order to determine if the government has proved substantial justification for its positions [.Dougherty, 711 F.2d] at 562. Brinker, 798 F.2d at 664 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The “special circumstances” provision is a “safety valve” designed to “insure that the Government is not deterred from advancing in good faith the novel but credible extensions and interpretations of the law that often underlie vigorous enforcement efforts” and to protect the court’s discretion to rely on “equitable considerations” in denying a fee award.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. De Allende v. Shultz
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.