Lundin v. Mecham’s Empirical Analysis
980 F.2d 1450 · 1992
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably F.J. Vollmer Co. v. Magaw (1996), Cooper v. United States Railroad Retirement Board (1994)
6 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 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
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Buckley v. Valeo · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Pierce v. Underwood
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the District Court for the District of Columbia did not have jurisdiction over the related cases; those cases were neither an essential step in connection with, nor in any way controlling in the prosecution of, the suit below.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We recognize that the litigation in the related cases [the • principal case being Benny ] had a direct impact on the result below, because the Government’s lawsuits in the related cases forces it to concede here.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded ... brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. (B) [a] party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an application for fees and other expenses which shows that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award.... The party shall also allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified. (Emphasis added).”
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.