28 Cal. 4th 274 - Musser v. Provencher’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
42 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 57 Cal. 2d 450 - Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court · 20 Cal. 3d 578 - American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court · 162 Cal. App. 3d 358 - San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society · 54 Cal. 2d 632 - Fifield Manor v. Finston · 62 Cal. App. 3d 389 - Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“interfere with loyalty to the client just because the attorney, as a joint tortfeasor, may face an indemnification claim if the client sues the attorney's concurrent counsel or cocounsel for malpractice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he concern is that the law firm from which [contribution] is sought may be unable to defend itself without revealing privileged client communications.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“claim could create a conflict of interest for the client's new attorney ... between [his or her] duty to the client and [his or her] self -interest[,]”
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.