Lattimore v. Oman Construction’s Empirical Analysis
868 F.2d 437 · 1989
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Rode v. Dellarciprete (1990), Dague v. City of Burlington (1991)
44 federal appellate · 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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Hensley v. Eckerhart · City of Riverside v. Rivera · Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air · Roofing & Sheet Metal Services, Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, an appellate court will “consider an issue not raised in the district court if it involves a pure question of law, and if refusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Second, the rule may be relaxed where the appellant raises an objection to an order which he had no opportunity to raise at the district court level. Third, the rule does not bar consideration by the appellate court in the first instance “where the interest of substantial justice is at stake.” Fourth, “a federal appellate court is justified in resolving an issue not passed on below ... where the proper resolution is beyond any doubt.” Finally, it may be appropriate to consider an issue first raised on appeal if that issue presents significant questions of general impact or of great public concern.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1) “no enhancement for risk is appropriate unless the applicant can establish that without an adjustment for risk the prevailing party ‘would have faced substantial difficulties in finding counsel in the local or other relevant market,’ ” this being the basic purpose of § 1988, ...; and 2) no enhancement for risk should be allowed on the basis of “ ‘legal’ risks or risks peculiar to the case” since these risks are adequately taken into account in fixing the “lodestar” figure....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a general rule, an appellate court will not consider a legal issue or theory raised for the first time on appeal.”
2 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.