In re Ruos’s Empirical Analysis
159 F. 252 · 1908
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1968
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Bacon v. . Frisbie · Randolph v. Quidnick Co.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ground upon which the rule has been rested for more than a century is the vital importance to the client that he should feel perfectly safe in disclosing the secrets of his case to his legal adviser. Protected by the privilege, he may be confident that (with few exceptions) whatever he may communicate cannot thereafter he used against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Clearly, this reason does not apply in a situation where the attorney becomes acquainted with facts from another source than his client.”
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.