Case Citator › Goldberger v. Integrated Resources

Goldberger v. Integrated Resources

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
209 F.3d 43
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
200 of 200
Citing cases (total)
476
Treatment dates
2014
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Goldberger v. Integrated Resources has one confirmed treatment, listed below: a district court criticized the usefulness of its lodestar cross-check when courts lack agreement about reasonable multipliers. All 200 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The other opinions applied Goldberger's common-fund fee framework or copied history parentheticals identifying Goldberger as the case that abrogated City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp. on other grounds; those parentheticals report Goldberger's act against another case and do not adversely treat Goldberger.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

476 later cases cite Goldberger v. Integrated Resources; 200 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Goldberger v. Integrated Resources?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The court criticized the lodestar cross-check attributed to Goldberger as worthless when courts lack agreement about reasonable multipliers.

    Fujiwara v. Sushi Yasuda Ltd. · S.D.N.Y. · filed

    And the lodestar calculation is used as a “ ‘cross check’ on the reasonableness of the requested percentage.” Goldberger, 209 F.3d at 50. ... The lodestar is worthless as a “cross check” on the percentage recovery method when there is so little agreement as to what constitutes a reasonable multiplier.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Goldberger v. Integrated Resources and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace