Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 KY 708 - O'Doherty & Yonts v. Bickel

O'Doherty & Yonts v. Bickel’s Empirical Analysis

1915

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
5
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2017

16 state decisions

6019151920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “the acquiescence which would raise an implied promise must be such as presumes volition upon the part of the person sought to be charged with the duty of compensating the attorney. It will not do to say that, where the circumstances are such that one has no choice but to avail himself of efforts which have been made by an attorney, this would constitute acquiescence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “may supply the place of a request to act, provided the case is such that the client might reasonably know that he would be expected to pay for the work; and the same would be true if the client by his acts induced the attorney to believe that his services were desired.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he general rule in this state ... that an attorney cannot recover fees for his services from one who has not employed him or authorized his employment, although the services may have been beneficial to such person.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.