Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 810 F.2d 1551 - Taylor v. City of Fort Lauderdale

Taylor v. City of Fort Lauderdale’s Empirical Analysis

810 F.2d 1551 · 1987

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
2
states following
January 2009
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently January 2009 · most notably Newsom v. Norris (1989), Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups (2009)

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

200198719902000decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Elrod v. Burns · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Maher v. Gagne

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

  1. “In order to qualify as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. 1988, the plaintiff must be successful on the central issue in the case, exhibited by the fact that the plaintiff acquired the primary relief sought.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “This Circuit follows the “central issue” test for determining and awarding attorney’s fees. In order to qualify as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , the plaintiff must be successful on the central issue in the case, exhibited by the fact that the plaintiff acquired the primary relief sought. [In Hensley,] the Supreme Court focused primarily on the standards to be used in assessing the amount of the prevailing party’s award of attorney’s fees. The award of fees, however, comes after a determination that a party has “prevailed,” either on “any significant issue” or the “central issue” in the litigation, depending on the Circuit.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Analysis [of the prevailing party question] hinges upon whether “the lawsuit is a substantial factor or a significant catalyst in motivating defendants to end their unconstitutional behavior.” [Doe v. Busbee, 684 F.2d 1375, 1380 (11th Cir.1982).]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.