Allegaert v. Perot’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 113 F. Supp. 265 - T. C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. · Emle Industries, Inc. v. Patentex, Inc. · Hull v. Celanese Corp. · General Motors Corporation v. City of New York, for Itself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, General Motors Corporation v. Hon. Robert L. Carter, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and City of New York, for Itself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated · EF Hutton & Company v. Brown
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the attorney [to be disqualified] had been in a position where he could have received information which the former client might reasonably have assumed the attorney would have withheld (i.e., kept secret) from the particular person who is now the opponent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the client has requested be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“rendered (to DGF) in connection with the duPont, Glore Forgan Incorporated-Walston Business Combination,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Allegaert v. Perot
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.