Singer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 district · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Rendine v. Pantzer (1995), Abrams v. Lightolier Inc. (1995)
6 federal appellate · 6 district · 90 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Flagg Brothers Inc v. Brooks J Lefkowitz
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he initial focus in the calculus is appropriately directed to the time expended in pursuing the litigation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a plaintiff's unsuccessful claims are related to the successful claims, either by a `common core of facts' or `related legal theories,' the court must consider the significance of the overall relief obtained to determine whether those hours devoted to the unsuccessful claims should be compensated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer of lawyers performing the services; (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. [ R.P.C. 1.5(a).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.