Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 801 FSUPP 1056 - Soler v. G & U, INC.

Soler v. G & U, INC.’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Abrahamson v. Board of Education (2004), 870 F. Supp. 510 - Ragin v. Harry MacKlowe Real Estate Co. (1994)

2 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

150199220002010decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School District · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

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

  1. “The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonably hourly rate. This calculation provides an objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of the value of a lawyer’s services. The party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed.”
    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.