Oates v. Oates’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Mallory v. Eyrich (1991), Vause v. Capital Poly Bag, Inc. (1989)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 1961 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 45 U.S.C. § 153 (Railway Labor Act) · 47 U.S.C. § 407
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Hutto v. Finney · Marek v. Chesny · Kirtland v. J. Ray McDermott & Co. · Radecki v. Amoco Oil Co.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[S]tatutory language is to be read in pertinent context rather than in isolation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n the absence of unambiguous statutory language defining attorney's fees as an additional component of costs, and a clear expression by Congress of an intent to carve out an exception to the American Rule ... attorney's fees are not `costs' for purposes of Rule 68”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“is thus well aware of the importance of distinguishing between 'costs' and 'damages' when its purpose is to impose liability on the States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.