Farrin v. Thigpen’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · Bates v. State Bar of Arizona · Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio · In re R. M. J.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Strategy Session” spot created "... an unjustified expectation that the lawyers advertised can obtain settlements based solely on their reputation and the insurance industry fear or reluctance to try a case against them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Keller“is only required where the ad at issue contains a truthful statement that is nonetheless misleading and is not required where the ad is inherently misleading.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services.”
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.