McKenzie v. Kennickell’s Empirical Analysis
875 F.2d 330 · 1989
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Rode v. Dellarciprete (1990), King v. Palmer (1991)
22 federal appellate · 5 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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School District · Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air · Blanchard v. Bergeron
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a charade in which clients seeking representation under fee shifting statutes would be steered to several attorneys whose pre-arranged role it would be to 'refuse' the case, knowing that such refusals were necessary to permit the eventual award of fees.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“specifically attracted by the possibility of a contingency enhancement.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Mabel A. King v. James F. Palmer, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections Mabel A. King v. James F. Palmer, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections · Mabel A. King v. James F. Palmer, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections Mabel A. King v. James F. Palmer, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections
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.