Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 Idaho 918 - Wright v. Wright

Wright v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2025

10 state decisions

601998200020102020decided

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 Hearst Corp. v. Keller · Spence v. Howell · Sato v. Schossberger · Knight Ins., Inc. v. Knight · Reinwald v. Eveland

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

  1. “After the order [granting leave to withdraw] is entered, the withdrawing attorney shall forthwith, with due diligence, serve copies of the same upon the client and all other parties to the action and shall file proof of service with the court. The withdrawing attorney may make such service upon the client by personal service or by certified mail to the last known address most likely to give notice to the client, which service shall be complete upon mailing. Upon the entry of an order granting leave to an attorney to withdraw from an action, no further proceedings can be had in that action which will affect the rights of the party of the withdrawing attorney for a period of 20 days after service or mailing of the order of withdrawal to the party. If such party fails to file and serve an additional written appearance in the action either in person or through a newly appointed attorney within such 20 day period, such failure shall be sufficient ground for entry of default and default judgment against such party ... without further notice ....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “This Court agrees that there must be strict compliance with Rule 11(b)(3) to obtain a valid judgment. The effect of the rule is to allow a party to be defaulted though the party has obtained counsel to represent his or her interests in the action and may have taken other significant steps to defend the claim.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The district court applied the proper standard in determining whether the Wrights had acted within a reasonable time, determining that they had acted promptly once they learned of the judgment.”
    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.