Shipes v. Trinity Industries’s Empirical Analysis
987 F.2d 311 · 1993
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (1998), Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad (2001)
56 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · City of Burlington v. Dague · Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air · Rush Pettway, Etc. v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) time and labor required; (2) novelty and difficulty of issues; (3) skill required; (4) loss of other employment in taking the case; (5) customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by client or circumstances; (8) amount involved and results obtained; (9) counsel’s experience, reputation, and ability; (10) case undesirability; (11) nature and length of relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[N]ovelty [and] complexity of the issues,' 'the special skill and experience of counsel,' the 'quality of representation,' and the 'results obtained' from the litigation are presumably fully reflected in the lodestar amount, and thus cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the basic fee award.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`(a) Prerequisites to Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.' "All of the above prerequisites must be satisfied before consideration of the additional criteria set out in (b) of Rule 23."”
4 later decisions 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.