Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 863 SW2D 617 - Conley v. Rauschenbach

Conley v. Rauschenbach’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2010

7 state decisions

40199320002010decided

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

Relies on Osterberger v. Hites Construction Co. · Washington University v. Royal Crown Bottling Co. of St. Louis · Arnold v. Edelman · Kopp v. Franks · Dugger v. Welp

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Missouri has adopted the “American Rule” which provides that litigants are to bear the expense of their own attorney’s fees. ' Attorney’s fees may be recovered, however, if the situation falls within one of the following categories: (1) recovery pursuant to contract or provided by statute; (2) recovery as damages to a wronged party involved in collateral litigation; or (3) reimbursement ordered by a court of equity to balance benefits. The equitable balancing of benefits by awarding attorney’s fees occurs only if “very unusual circumstances” can be shown. “Very unusual circumstances,” as it relates to the reimbursement of attorney’s fees, has been interpreted to mean an unusual type of case or unusually complicated litigation. “Balancing of benefits” under “very unusual circumstances” has been confined to very limited fact situations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.