Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 936 F.2d 981 - Leffler v. Meer

Leffler v. Meer’s Empirical Analysis

936 F.2d 981 · 1991

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably McNabola v. Chicago Transit Authority (1993), Sheehan v. Donlen Corp. (1999)

32 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

330199120002010decided

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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Hughes v. Rowe · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “appropriate in view of the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In order to collect attorney’s fees, a prevailing defendant “must demonstrate that the plaintiff brought her action in subjective bad faith, or that ‘the plaintiffs action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Despite the district court's wide latitude in determining a fee award, if the requested hourly rate or number of hours is reduced, a clear explanation must be provided.”
    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.