green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
18.3 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901
1963
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Milo Shammas v. Margaret Focarino
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
the general practice of the united states is in opposition to ; and even if that practice were not strictly correct in principle, it is entitled to the respect of the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Shammas v. Lee
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
each litigant pays his own attorney's fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kalloo v. Estate of Small
(2×)
the general practice of the united states is in opposition to ... and ... that practice ... is entitled to the respect of the court, till it is changed, or modified, by statute.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Wawa, Inc. Data Security Litigation v.
Reasonableness has always been the measurement for fees in a common fund, beginning with Trustees v. Greenough, which adopted the equitable practice of paying fees “where one of many parties having a common interest in a trust fund, at his own expense takes proper proceedings to save it from 12 In 1796, the Supreme Court considered and disallowed an award of attorney’s fees because “[t]he general practice of the United States is in opposition to it; and even if that practice were not strictly correct in principle, it is entitled to the respect of the court, till it is changed, or modifie…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Luis Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc, LL
The American Rule against awarding costs and fees to the prevailing party was well-established by 1796, when the Supreme Court described it as the “general practice of the United States.” Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306, 306 (1796).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC
Section 330(a)(1) itself does not authorize the award of fees for defending a fee application, and that is the end of the matter. * * * As we long ago observed, “The general practice of the United States is in opposition” to forcing one side to pay the other’s attorney’s fees, and “even if that practice [is] not strictly correct in principle, it is entitled to the respect of the court, till it is changed, or modified, by statute.” Arcambel, 3 Dall., at 306 (emphasis deleted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jacob Harrison v. Roseann Dixon
Roseann can articulate no reason why Jacob’s settlement with the individuals who purchased the Property should offset an award unrelated to the Property. 45 Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. 306, 306 (1796). 46 See e.g., Mahani v. Edix Media Gp., Inc., 935 A.2d 242, 245 (Del. 2007). 47 See e.g., Johnston v. Arbitrum (Cayman Islands) Handels AG, 720 A.2d 542, 546 (Del. 1998). 10 or knowingly asserting frivolous claims.48 The court will not casually award attorneys’ fees under the bad faith exception.49 This exception is used only in extraordinary circumstances to deter abuse of the judicial syste…
discussed
Cited "see"
Loparex, LLC v. MPI Release Technologies, LLC
(2×)
See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796) (striking inclusion of attorney fees in award of damages because “[t]he general practice of the United States is in opposition to it”).
cited
Cited "see"
EIU Group, Inc. v. Citibank Delaware, Inc.
See 3 U.S. (3 Dali.) 306, 1 L.Ed. 613 .
examined
Cited "see"
In Re Niles
(4×)
See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796).
cited
Cited "see"
Toland v. Davis Modified on Denial of Rehearing
See Arcambel v. Wiseman , 3 U.S. (Dallas) 306, 1 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Barron's Educational Series, Inc. v. Hiltzik
(2×)
See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 Dall. 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796); Fleischer v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 329 F.2d 424, 426 (2d Cir.1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 835 , 85 S.Ct. 68 , 13 L.Ed.2d 43 (1964) (counsel fees may not be included in a losing party’s bill of costs except in the most extraordinary of instances). 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
Unbelievable, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
(2×)
See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796). 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
Unbelievable, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
(2×)
See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796). 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
PCI/RCI v. United States
(2×)
See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose Piedad Sanchez v. Bill Rowe, in His Individual and Official Capacities as a U.S. Border Patrol Agent
(2×)
See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796). 8 .
examined
Cited "see"
Blue Sky Advocates v. State
(3×)
See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306 , 1 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. 341.45 Acres of Land
(2×)
See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 Dall. 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796); Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363 , 14 L.Ed. 181 (1852); Oelrichs v. Spain, 15 Wall. 211 , 21 L.Ed. 43 (1872); Flanders v. Tweed, 15 Wall. 450 , 21 L.Ed. 203 (1873); Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U.S. 187 , 25 L.Ed. 116 (1879).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Park Properties Associates, L.P. v. United States
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 (1967); see also Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306 (1796) (in which this rule originated).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Park Properties Associates, L.P. v. United States
(2×)
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 , 87 S.Ct. 1404 , 18 L.Ed.2d 475 (1967); see also Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796) (in which this rule originated).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Misener Marine Construction, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co.
(4×)
L. & Com. 507 , 563-66 (1996) (putting forth the argument that courts have mistaken the American Rule for a substantive maritime rule when it is actually a general federal procedural rule). [20] See supra Section III.B.; see also Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306, 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796); The Baltimore, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 377, 392 , 19 L.Ed. 463 (1869); Golden Pisces, Inc. v. Fred Wahl Marine Constr., Inc., 495 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir.2007); Texas A&M Research Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394 , 405-06 (5th Cir.2003); Southworth Machinery Co., Inc. v. F/V Corey Pride, 994 F.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
North Star Alaska Housing Corp. v. United States
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Mater Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 , 87 S.Ct. 1404 , 18 L.Ed.2d 475 (1967); see also Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dali.) 306, 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796) (in which this rule originated).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Centex Corporation and Ctx Holding Company v. United States, First Heights Bank, Fsb, Pulte Diversified Companies, Inc., and Pulte Homes, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
Compare The Apollon, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 362, 379 , 6 L.Ed. 111 (1824) (allowing counsel fees as part of damages under admiralty law), with Day v. Woodworth, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 363, 371-73 , 14 L.Ed. 181 (1851) (stating that a court cannot award counsel fees in excess of the taxed costs as a penalty for misconduct, but noting that admiralty law allows for such a recovery), and Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306, 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796) (per curiam) ("The general practice of the United States is in opposition to [recovery of counsel's fees]; and even if that practice were not strictly cor…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975); see also Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Massie v. United States
(2×)
Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975); see also Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 Dall. 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Irwin v. Surdyk's Liquor
(4×)
See, e.g., Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306, 306 , 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Summit Valley Industries, Inc. v. Local 112, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
See, e. g., Arcambel v. Wiseman, supra; Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363 (1852); cf. Teamsters v. Morton, 377 U. S. 252, 260, n. 15 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arcambel Versus Wiseman
Supreme Court of the United States.
Aug 12, 1796.
Cited by 148 opinions | Published
By the Court
:—We do not think that this charge ought to be allowed. The general pra£lice of the United States is in opofttion to it; and even if that pratftice. were not ftridtly correct in principle, it is entitled to the refpeét of the court, till it is changed, or modified, by ftatute. ;
There are feveral ways in which the- charge may be expunged: l?ut we recommend, as, perhaps, the eafieft way; that the counfel for the Defendant in error, ihould enter a remitti . tur for the amount. .
A remittitur was accordingly entered.