Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 FRD 48 - In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation

In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
February 2005
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 9 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2005 · most notably Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air (1987), Mares v. Credit Bureau of Raton (1986)

3 federal appellate · 9 district ·

310198319902000decided

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. § 1407

Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co

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

  1. “In this litigation, it was not unusual for senior partners to devote a great deal of time to clerical and administrative and investigative tasks such as document re- . view. Partners will not be compensated at partner-level rates for tasks which are customarily performed by junior associates or paralegals.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “14.3 hours are supported by entries which are too vague to provide any basis for determining if the time spent was of value to the class.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Firrn Hours Freeman, Atkins & Coleman, Ltd. 12.17 App. J 176 Robert S. Atkins partner time for reviewing various discovery documents reduced to associate level. Robert C. Goldberg partner 112.6 App. J 178 time for reviewing Champion discovery documents and Federal Trade Commission documents, and attending discovery of client Campbell Paper Co. reduced to associate level. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Eiger, P.C. Lawrence H. Eiger partner 86.8 App. J 253 time for reviewing and collating documents, legal research, summarizing depositions and organizing price work sheets, reduced to associate level. Michael J. Freed partner 85.9 App. J 255 time for conferences or on phone with co-counsel reading and reviewing various pleadings and documents filed in the case, drafting a complaint for his client and attending depositions taken by others, reduced to associate level. Firm Hours Robert A. Skirnick partner 74.4 App. J 256 time for document review, research, and drafting motions, reduced to associate level. Anthony C. Yaliulis partner 3.3 App. J 257 time for legal research and drafting motions reduced to associate level. O’Brien & Hallisey Jeremiah F. Hallisey partner 219.55 App. J 276 time for general research, conference time, correspondence, and review which could readily have been performed by an associate, reduced to associate level. Sachnoff, Weaver & Rubenstein, Ltd. Dean A. Dickie partner 53.75 App. J 352 time for scheduling, preparing indices, and inspecting microfilm ”
    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.