Kamerman Jbp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘§ 475. Attorney’s lien in action, special or other proceeding ‘Prom the commencement of an action, special or other proceeding in any court or before any state, municipal or federal department, except a department of labor, or the service of an answer containing counterclaim, the attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client’s cause of action, claim or counterclaim, which attaches to a verdict, report, determination, decision, judgment or final order in his client’s favor, and the proceeds thereof in whatever hands they may come; and the lien cannot be affected by any settlement between the parties before or after judgment, final order or determination. The court upon the petition Of the client or attorney may determine and enforce the lien.’ A lien under this state statute may be determined and enforced summarily in a proceeding ancillary to the main suit in the United States District Court. See Nic Projector Corporation v. Movie-Jecktor Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1935, 16 F.Supp. 605, 606 ; Ingold v. Ingold, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1939, 30 F.Supp. 347, 348 ; Nolan v. Hemingway Bros. Interstate Trucking Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1950, 88 F.Supp. 111, 113 . Section 475 is to `be treated as one establishing a substantive right.' See In re Baxter & Co., 2 Cir., 1907, 154 F. 22, 25 ." Application of Kamerman, 278 F.2d 411 , 412-413 n. 1 (2 Cir. 1960).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 575 F. Supp. 837 - Marrero v. Christiano · 305 F. Supp. 250 - Paolillo v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

2. ““While the authorities are divided, the more widely supported view is that an attorney may recover upon the basis of quantum meruit for professional services rendered by him under a champertous retainer agreement. “The next proposition — that the attorney has a lien for an amount computed on a quantum meruit basis, notwithstanding the champertous retainer agreement— was squarely adopted in McCoy v. Gas Engine & Power Co., 2d Dept. 1912, 152 App.Div. 642 , 137 N.Y.S. 591 , affirmed unanimously without opinion 1913, 208 N.Y. 631 , 102 N.E. 1106 . * * * The retainer was set aside but the attorney was awarded $30,000 ‘as the reasonable value of the services performed by him’, and ‘the sum so fixed’ was ‘to be a lien upon the award’ (152 App.Div. at pages 644, 646, 137 N.Y.S. at page 593 .)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Morfeld v. Andrews