Baker v. Lindgren’s Empirical Analysis
856 F.3d 498 · 2017
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company v. Procter & Gamble Company · Gavoni v. Dobbs House, Inc. · e360 Insight v. Spamhaus Project · Ernst & Young LLP v. Baker O'Neal Holdings, Inc.
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.
“plaintiffs may be considered prevailing parties for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees if they succeed on any significant issue in the litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Capps v. Drake
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.