Chambers v. Ingram’s Empirical Analysis
858 F.2d 351 · 1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom (1995), Ellis v. United Airlines, Inc. (1996)
14 federal appellate ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1821 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Daniels v. Williams · 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Crawford Fitting Company v. Jt Gibbons Inc Champion International Corporation · Kahn v. Grant
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he court may issue the latter order [to pay fees and expenses that a party incurs in obtaining information from an expert] as a condition of discovery, or it may delay the order until after discovery is completed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen a prevailing party seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witnesses, a federal court is bound by the limit of Sec. 1821(b), absent contract or explicit statutory authority to the contrary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]nless manifest injustice would result ... the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery....”
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.