Landers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
16 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana))
Relationships
Relies on Guzman v. State · State v. Cullen · Freund v. Butterworth · State v. Moff · United States of America v. Mike Lavallee, Rod Schultz, and Robert Verbickas
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Without prior consent, a lawyer who personally has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in a matter adverse to the former client: [[Image here]] (3) if it is the same or a substantially related matter. (b) Except to the extent authorized by Rule 1.10, when lawyers are or have become members of or associated with a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent' a client if any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by paragraph (a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Cox“might well err on the side of caution and voluntarily disqualify himself from representing the State in the criminal prosecution of a former client, but neither trial nor appellate courts can patrol the outskirts of the possible appearance of impropriety by a duly elected district attorney.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Goodman v. State“(a) Time to rule. The court must rule on a motion for new trial within 75 days after imposing or suspending sentence in open court. (b) Ruling. In ruling on a motion for new trial, the court may make oral or written findings of fact....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cueva v. State
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.