Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 891 FSUPP 927 - Weitzman v. Stein

Weitzman v. Stein’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
September 2005
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 401

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · In re Disbarment of Morrison · New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Hugh L. Carey, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York

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

  1. “First, plaintiff’s argument that this Court previously expressed approval for an hourly rate of $275 does not satisfy the requirement that plaintiff submit evidence to the Court regarding “the rate ‘prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.’ ” Miele, 831 F.2d at 409 (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n. 11). Second, the statement that the sum of $275 was previously. discussed before this Court is inaccurate. Although plaintiffs attorney has submitted the transcript of a hearing in which the sum of $225 per hour was mentioned, the sum of $275 was never discussed. Third, plaintiffs attorney’s suggestion that this Court expressed approval for the rate of $225 per hour is misleading.' Having reviewed the transcript, this Court does not believe that it can fairly be interpreted as expressing any approval of the rate of $225 per hour. Moreover, while plaintiffs counsel is correct in noting that this Court did not find that the claimed rate was unreasonable, this Court also did not find that the rate was reasonable. This Court simply made no finding regarding whether plaintiffs proposed rate of $225 was reasonable. Plaintiffs attorney’s suggestion that this previously Court expressed approval of his hourly rate treads upon the line that separates overzealous advocacy from affirmative misrepresentation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[It is hereby] ORDERED, that Garage Management Corp. shall release to the plaintiff or plaintiffs representatives, the 1983 Lincoln Towne car bearing Florida license plate number IPE 075 ... and it is further ORDERED, that Sidney Stein, Gail Rohme and their representatives' are prohibited from interfering with any part of this Order, and it is further ORDERED, that the plaintiff or plaintiffs representative shall take possession of said motor vehicle and shall arrange for the sale of said motor vehicle by the Sheriff of the City of New York....”
    1 later decision 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.