Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 915 F.2d 542 - Florida v. Dunne

Florida v. Dunne’s Empirical Analysis

915 F.2d 542 · 1990

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
4
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Camden Condominium Association Inc v. B Dunkle (1991), Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation Class (1994)

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

370199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert · Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Phila. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.

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

  1. “[W]e require only that fee awards in common fund cases be reasonable under the circumstances.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the combined effect of granting the fee applications in toto would be to reduce substantially the size of the common fund available for distribution to the plaintiff class.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The fact that seventy-two percent of the common fund could be distributed in attorney's fees and costs in this case is disturbing.”
    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.