Owens v. Bolt’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Spence v. Spence (1940), Ex Parte Wilkinson (1929)
37 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 Dent v. Foy · Denson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. · Western Ry. v. Foshee · Gulf States Steel Co. v. Justice · Farmers' Bank & Trust Co. v. Borroughs
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is a distinct difference between a suit for the recovery of property under subdivision 3 and one for the recovery of money under subdivision 2. “In a suit for money, the suit must be prosecuted to judgment to bring into being the subject-matter to which the lien attaches. In a suit for property, the subject-matter is already in being. Hence the marked difference in the language of the two subdivisions. In one the attorney is given the same power over the suit as the client. In the other, he is merely granted power to enforce his lien.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Upon suits, judgments, and decrees for money, they shall have a lien superior to all liens but tax liens, and no person shall be at liberty to satisfy said suit, judgment or decree, until the lien or claim of the attorney for his fees is fully satisfied; and attorneys at law shall have the same right and power over said suits, judgments' and decrees, to enforce their liens, as their clients had or may have for the amount due thereon to them.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Clanahan“"The rule in Alabama is that an attorney discharged without cause, or otherwise prevented from full performance, is entitled to be reasonably compensated only for services rendered before such discharge. Hall v. Gunter, 157 Ala. 375 , 47 So. 155 [ (1908) ]. This appears to be the prevailing rule where the contract, as here, called for a contingent fee. 6 C.J. p. 724, § 293." Owens v. Bolt, 218 Ala. 344, 348 , 118 So. 590 (1928).”
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.