281 N.J. Super. 73 - Mateo v. Mateo’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2013
2 district · 18 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 234 N.J. Super. 534 - La Mantia v. Durst · 54 N.J. Super. 347 - H. & H. Ranch Homes, Inc. v. Smith · 239 N.J. Super. 77 - Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as a `step in the main cause,' although ... it is to be tried as a `separate and distinct plenary action.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prior to institution of an action to recover a fee, an attorney shall notice his client of the client’s option to pursue the fee arbitration remedy as provided for by these rules. If the client does not elect to pursue the fee arbitration remedy, the attorney’s complaint shall allege the giving of the notice required by this rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shalit v. Shalit“must be dismissed where the attorney does not allege that he or she gave the client notice of the availability of the Fee Arbitration Committee proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.