Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 302 Ark. 13 - Lockley v. Easley

Lockley v. Easley’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
October 2006
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Forrest City MacHine Works, Inc. v. Aderhold Ex Rel. Cross County Bank · Harrison v. Matthews · State ex rel. Moose v. Kansas City & Memphis Railway & Bridge Co. · Schultz v. Rector-Phillips-Morse, Inc. · Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Smith

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

  1. “The [Attorneys Lien Law] explicitly provides that attorneys may rely on their contractual rights with clients and are entitled to obtain a hen for services based on such agreements. The Attorneys Lien Law also provides that, under appropriate circumstances, the lien may be enforced not only against the client but against anyone, including another attorney, who knowingly settles with an opposing litigant without the consent of the attorney.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “But the chancellor found that Easley had submitted the statement for $297.50 in good faith and before he discovered the facts concerning the payment and settlement, and concluded that his rights under the contractual agreement with Mrs. Carter could not be thereby defeated. We believe that was correct and appellants have not cited authority requiring a different result.”
    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.