Scott v. Kirtley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 43 state decisions

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

1. ““We are of the opinion that where, as the result of services rendered by an attorney at law in suing for and recovering for his client certain real estate, the client has realized the real estate as fruits of the attorney’s professional services, under an express or implied understanding on the part of both attorney and client, that a reasonable attorney's fee would be charged, and would of necessity be payable out of the property realized by the client as a result of the successful efforts' of the attorney in litigating for it, that even in the absence of any express contract for a definite amount of fee, an equitable lien, based upon the fundamental maxim of equity, that no one shall be unjustly enriched at another’s expense, may be implied and declared by a court of chancerey, out of general considerations of right and justice which must be applied to the relations of the attorney and client with reference to the fruits of the transaction, and the circumstances of their dealings with each other, with the understanding that the services of the attorney would be payable out of what the client should realize as a result of the successful efforts of the attorney: 17 R. C. L., page 605, par. 14; Graeber v. McMullin, 56 Fed. (2nd) 497; Certiorari denied by United States Court in 287 U. S. 603 , 56 Sup. Ct. 9, 77 L. Ed. 19 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knabb v. Mabry

2. ““The Attorney’s lien, whether under the statute or at common law, is equitable in its nature. Even the decisions in this country, which confine its existence and application to the narrowest limits, always' speak of it as an equitable lien, right or privilege. It is not property in the thing which gives a right of action at law. It is a charge upon the thing which is protected in equity. Courts of law may recognize it when the res is in possession of the lienor and the owner is seeking to deprive him of possession. But where the thing is not in possession, and some affirmative' action is required by the attorney, he, like other lien claimants, must seek relief in equity. * * * since a court of equity is the only forum that can enforce by proper decree the lien rights, we are of the opinion that this is one of the cases wherein such court may take and retain jurisdiction for all purposes.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knabb v. Mabry