92 F. Supp. 3d 14 - Osterweil v. Bartlett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “A litigant cannot overcome the presumption in favor of in-district rates " 'by relying on the prestige or 'brand name' of [their] selected counsel.' " Osterweil v Bartlett , 92 F.Supp.3d 14 , 17 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (D'Agostino, D.J.) (quoting Simmons , 575 F.3d at 176 ). Rather, the litigant can prevail by "establishing that local counsel possessing requisite experience were unwilling or unable to take the case, or by establishing, in a case requiring special expertise, that no in-district counsel possessed such expertise.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grant v. City of Syracuse

2. “[A] trail judge may decline to compensate hours spent by collaborating lawyers or may limit the hours allowed for specific tasks, but for the most part such decisions are best made by the district court on the basis of its own assessment of what is appropriate for the scope and complexity of the particular litigation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grant v. City of Syracuse

3. “[t]he party seeking the award [must make a particularized showing, not only that the selection of out-of-district counsel was predicated on experience-based, objective factors, but also of the likelihood that use of in-district counsel would produce a substantially inferior result.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grant v. City of Syracuse