King v. Keith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 state decisions

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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[T]hough in reviewing the propriety of the fixation of such fees by the lower court, this court will be guided by its own judgment upon a consideration of the whole record, . . . we make such review with a presumption in favor of the ruling of the court below and will not set *Page 165 aside its decree unless we are convinced that that court abused the discretion wisely vested in it.'”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 807 So. 2d 512 - Huntley v. Regions Bank · 575 So. 2d 83 - Lanier v. Moore-Handley, Inc.

2. “... (1) the nature and value of the subject matter of the employment; (2) the learning, skill and labor requisite to the proper discharge of that employment; (3) time consumed; (4) the professional ability, experience and reputation of the attorney; (5) the weight of his responsibility; (6) the measure of success achieved; (7) the reasonable expenses incurred.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 54 Ala. App. 396 - Burgess v. Burgess · Norris v. Green

3. ““In estimating the value of legal services, following are among the elements material for consideration: (1) the nature and value of the subject matter of the employment; (2) the learning, skill and labor requisite to the proper discharge of that employment; (3) time consumed; (4) the professional ability, experience and reputation of the attorney; (5) the weight of his responsibility; (6) the measure of success achieved; (7) the reasonable expenses incurred. T. S. Faulk & Co. v. Hobbie Grocery Co., 178 Ala. 254 , 59 So. 450 ; Dent v. Foy, supra; Humes v. Decatur Land Improvement & Furnace Co., 98 Ala. 461 , 13 So. 368 ; Frazer v. First National Bank, supra, [ 235 Ala. 252 , 178 So. 441 ], ****** “Nor are we impressed with the argument that the contingent nature of the employment of appellee by King should be altogether laid out of view in determining the amount of the allowance of the will fee. It is a recognized rule that the certainty or contingency of the compensation affects the amount of a fee, a much larger one being allowable in the latter case. Canons of Professional Ethics of American Bar Association, No. 12; Fee Contracts of Lawyers, by Earl W. Wood (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1936), § 36, p. 90; 6 Corpus Juris 752, § 331; 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, § 191; F. L. Stitt & Co. v. Powell, 94 Fla. 550 (6), 114 So. 375 ; Ex parte Wilkinson, 220 Ala. 529 , 126 So. 102 ; Denson v. Caddell, 201 Ala. 194 , 77 So. 720 ; Willett & Willett v. First National Bank of Anniston, 234 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kilgore v. Baker