People v. Gomberg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 7 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We hold that the Trial Judge’s inquiry of appellants and their counsel as to possible conflict of interest in this case was more than sufficient to protect the appellants’ right to effective assistance of counsel. Although Gomberg initially ex pressed some misgivings, at the end of the proceedings all of the defendants were made aware of the possible conflict and acquiesced in the continuation of the Kassner & Detsky representation. The court took added precaution to advise the defendants that if at some later stage of the trial a conflict arose, the court would permit other counsel to enter the case. The defendants, intelligent and perceptive businessmen, never complained thereafter. They should not be permitted to complain now.” 38 N.Y.2d at 315 , 379 N.Y.S.2d at 776 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaplan v. Bombard

2. ““The trial court, by its careful and measured response to the conflict of interest issue, more than fulfilled its obligation to make a reasonable inquiry of possible conflict. The defendants, after being alerted to the existence of a possible conflict of interest and given the opportunity to retain separate counsel, consented to continued representation by Kassner & Detsky. By his consent, which was knowingly and intelligently made, defendant Kaplan, as well as defendant Gomberg, waived any claim of possible prejudice resulting from the joint representation.” 38 N.Y.2d at 316 , 379 N.Y. S.2d at 777 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaplan v. Bombard

3. “Attorneys are under an ethical obligation to disclose to their clients, at the earliest possible time, any conflicting interests that might cloud their representation. Disclosure alone is not enough. The lawyer may not act for the client unless the client has given his informed consent to further representation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 376 F. Supp. 2d 294 - Anderson v. Nassau County Department of Corrections