Quint v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Venegas v. Mitchell · Quint v. Ae Staley Manufacturing Company M · Ruth M. Sargeant v. Alexander E. Sharp, II · 245 F. Supp. 2d 162 - Quint v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. · Gobert v. Williams
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“unlike statutory fees, which normally are delimited to “reasonable” compensation, fee awards predicated upon fee arrangements privately negotiated between attorney and client are reviewed more deferentially; in the sense that [courts] will exercise [their] supervisory power to reduce a fee award predicated upon a fee agreement only in those “exceptional circumstances” where the fee assessed by counsel is “unethically excessive.” Quint v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 84 Fed.Appx. 101, 102 (1st Cir.2003) (per curiam) (unpublished) (quoting Sargeant v. Sharp, 579 F.2d 645 , 648 n. 4 (1st Cir.1978), and citing Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 87-88 , 110 S.Ct. 1679 , 109 L.Ed.2d 74 (1990)).”
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.