Day v. Rosenthal’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Love v. Fire Insurance Exchange (1990), Federal Deposit Insurance ex rel. American Diversified Savings Bank v. O'Melveny & Meyers (1992)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 61 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 3 Cal. 2d 427 - Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co. · 56 Cal. 2d 583 - Lucas v. Hamm · 6 Cal. 3d 176 - Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand · 56 Cal. 2d 355 - Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court · 6 Cal. 3d 195 - Budd v. Nixen
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“such skill, prudence and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“it is an attorney's duty to 'protect his client in every possible way....'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Rule 4-101 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, in effect in 1985, provided: “A member of the State Bar shall not accept employment adverse to a client or former client, without the informed and written consent of the client or former client, relating to a matter in reference to which he has obtained confidential information by reason of or in the course of his employment by such client or former client.” “Rule 5-102 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, in effect through mid-1989, provided: “(A) A member of the State Bar shall not accept professional employment without first disclosing his relation, if any, with the adverse party, and his interest, if any, in the subject matter of the employment. . . . “(B) A member of the State Bar shall not represent conflicting interests, except with the written consent of all parties concerned.””
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.