Schuff v. A.T. Klemens & Son’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 district · 128 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Seltzer v. Morton (2007), Sunburst School District No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc. (2007)
2 district · 128 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 424
Relies on Feres v. United States · Richardson v. Belcher · Ford v. United States · Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Liepelt · Mathews v. De Castro
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Pursuant to this Court's singular jurisdiction under Article VII, Section 2(3), of the Montana Constitution over matters pertaining to lawyer discipline and claimed violations of the [M.R.P.C.], we conclude that the conduct of Schuff's counsel and of Klemens' trial and appellate counsel as regards those claimed violations, must be referred to the Commission on Practice. If the Commission's further investigation reveals violations of the [M.R.P.C.] as regards counsels' conduct in this case, then the Commission may pursue appropriate prosecutions and recommendations for discipline as the facts and law may, in the Commission's discretion, warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. In Re Wenz“The principle of pro tanto reduction provides that “when a joint tort-feasor settles with a claimant, the claimant’s recovery against the remaining tort-feasor is to be reduced dollar-for-dollar by the consideration paid by the settling tort-feasor.” Boyken v. Steele (1993), 256 Mont. 419, 421 , 847 P.2d 282, 284 (citations omitted). The pro tanto rule applies only if two or more concurrent or joint tortfeasors cause a single “indivisible” harm. See Jim’s Excavating Serv., Inc. v. HKM Associates (1994), 265 Mont. 494, 514 , 878 P.2d 248, 250 ; Azure v. City of Billings (1979), 182 Mont. 234, 248 , 596 P.2d 460, 468 [.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Plath v. Schonrock“[A] motion to disqualify must offer sufficient proof that the continued representation of one party by the attorney or firm will prejudice or adversely impact the rights of another party in the matter pending before the court. Evidence demonstrating that an attorney or firm did, in fact, violate a professional conduct rule merely serves as additional weight that may tip the scales in favor of disqualification.”
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.