Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 809 F. Supp. 131 - Douglas v. Baker

809 F. Supp. 131 - Douglas v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

3 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 5 U.S.C. § 504 (Equal Access to Justice Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (§ 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Pierce v. Underwood · Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jean · Melkonyan v. Sullivan · Sullivan v. Hudson

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

  1. “[T]he exception for “limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved” must refer to attorneys “qualified for the proceedings” in some specialized sense, rather than just in their general legal competence. We think it refers to attorneys having some distinctive knowledge or specialized skill needful for the litigation in question — as opposed to an extraordinary level of the general lawyerly knowledge and ability useful in all litigation. Examples of the former would be an identifiable practice specialty such as patent law, or knowledge of foreign law or language. Where such qualifications are necessary and can be obtained only at rates in excess of the [statutory] cap, reimbursement above that limit is allowed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “paucity of local immigration attorneys willing to take cases at the statutory rate.” Id. at 136 n. 6. In the case at bar, the NAM has not shown such a”
    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.