Gilchrist v. Perl’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Burrow v. Arce (1999), Handeen v. Lemaire (1997)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 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 Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. · Melina v. Chaplin · Rice v. Perl · 98 Wash. 2d 835 - Perez v. Pappas · Frank v. Bloom
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is ... well settled that an attorney at law who is unfaithful in the performance of his duties forfeits his right to compensation. An attorney is an officer of the court, sworn to aid in the administration of justice and to act with strict fidelity to both the clients and the courts. Un questioned fidelity to their real interests is the duty of every attorney to his clients. When a breach of faith occurs, the attorney’s right to compensation is gone.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... the law has traditionally been unyielding in its assessment of penalties when a fiduciary or trustee, or agent has breached any of his obligations. The underlying policy is a strong one. It recognizes that insuring absolute fidelity to the principal’s or beneficiary’s interests is fundamental to establishing the trust necessary to the proper functioning of these relationships.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because clients have an absolute right to their attorney's undivided loyalty, any breach is deemed to result in some harm entitling the client to reparation consisting of at least nominal damages....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sanders v. Townsend
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.