Jean v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
863 F.2d 759 · 1988
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 181 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jean (1990), Rode v. Dellarciprete (1990)
46 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 555 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (§ 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Pierce v. Underwood · Hutto v. Finney
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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... [A] court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses ... incurred by that party in any civil action ... including proceedings for judicial review of agency action ... brought by or against the United States ... unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” ... "fees and other expenses” includes ... reasonable attorney fees....”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the government ... advanced litigation for any improper purpose such as harassment, unnecessary delay or increase in the plaintiffs' expense, then consistent with Pierce, its action warrants the imposition of a special factor.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“practice specialty such as patent law, or knowledge of foreign law or language”
3 later decisions 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.