Jenkins ex rel. Agyei v. Missouri’s Empirical Analysis
838 F.2d 260 · 1988
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2013 · most notably Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. Agyei (1989), Missouri v. Jenkins (1995)
32 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 1988
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Hutto v. Finney · City of Riverside v. Rivera · Library of Congress v. Shaw
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We cannot agree with the Rogers court that the holding in Shaw is applicable in a case involving eleventh amendment, rather than federal sovereign immunity, or to a case where the court awards current rates or considers delay as one factor in setting a compensatory fee award ... We see no reason to extend Shaw to the body of eleventh amendment law, which was not covered by its rationale.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where the plaintiff has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee. Where a lawsuit consists of related claims, a plaintiff who has won substantial relief should not have his attorney’s fee reduced simply because the district court did not adopt each contention raised. But where the plaintiff achieved only limited success, the district court should award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““... Shaw was expressly based on the “no interest” rule of statutory interpretation applicable in suits against the federal government. 106 S.Ct. at 2962-63 . Rogers does not explain why it considers Shaw’s federal sovereign immunity holding applicable in an eleventh amendment setting, and indeed Rogers acknowledges that the two areas of law carry ‘different standards of statutory interpretation.’ 821 F.2d at 27 .””
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.