Bryant v. Hand’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Hartman v. Freedman (1979), Matter of King Resources Co. (1982)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 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 Estes v. Texas · Hall v. Pinto · In Re Hearings Concerning Canon 35 · Rupp v. Cool · Harms v. Harms
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Once the confidential relationship of attorney and client exists, the law governing contracts entered into between them is very different. The test applied to such contracts when the attorney seeks to enforce the same is well stated in 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, § 204 (2): "Where after the relationship has been established, an attorney and client enter into an agreement in reference to the attorney's compensation, * * * the burden is on him to prove that the agreement was fairly and openly made, was supported by an adequate consideration, and that he gave the client full knowledge of the facts and of his legal rights, when he entered into the agreement, and that the services to be performed were reasonably worth the amount stated in the agreement; * * *."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he canons of ethics are not binding on the courts and do not have the force of law”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * In our view, the effect of the canon is that whenever a contingent fee contract becomes a subject of litigation in the courts, the lawyer, by reason of the canon, understands that the court, under its general supervisory powers over attorneys, as officers of the courts, will determine the reasonableness of the amount and will subject it to the test of quantum meruit. This does not mean that the court can or should remake the contract; but rather that it should determine from all the facts and circumstances the amount of time spent, the novelty of the questions of law, and the risks of non-return to the client and to the attorney in the situation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brillhart v. Hudson
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.