Fox v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 71 Cal. App. 4th 1114 - City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999), Frank Santalucia v. Sebright Transportation Inc
8 federal appellate · 32 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 1 Cal. 3d 93 - Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co. · 6 Cal. 3d 784 - Fracasse v. Brent · Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. Glen · 156 Cal. App. 3d 171 - Jewel v. Boxer · 146 Cal. App. 3d 200 - Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. Cohen
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, [ Jewel ] was not based solely on partnership law but also cited "sound policy reasons" for its decision. "The rule prevents partners from competing for the most remunerative cases during the life of the partnership in anticipation that they might retain those cases should the partnership dissolve. It also discourages former partners from scrambling to take physical possession of files and seeking personal gain by soliciting a firm's existing clients upon dissolution.... On balance, the allocation of fees according to each partner's interest in the former partnership should not work an undue hardship as to any partner where each partner completes work on the partnership's cases which are active upon its dissolution." .... [Second,] [ Jewel ] is also based in part upon fiduciary obligations of law partners.... There is no reason to hold that when lawyers decide to practice together in corporate form rather than partnership, they are relieved of fiduciary obligations toward each other with respect to the corporation's business.... [A]ttorneys practicing together in a law corporation owe each other fiduciary duties very similar to those owed by law partners, and therefore the fact that a law corporation is involved is no reason to disregard the fair and reasonable principles of [ Jewel ] or to interpret the parties' agreement in a manner favoring one group over another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sufrin v. Hosier“In [ Jewel ], four attorneys ... practiced law together in a partnership. They dissolved the partnership and formed two new firms.... Each of the new law firms took a portion of the former firm's active cases, and the clients involved executed the appropriate substitutions of attorney.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sufrin v. Hosier“[T] he right of a client to the attorney of one's choice and the rights and duties as between partners with respect to income from unfinished business are distinct and do not offend one another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. LaFond v. Sweeney
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.