Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 45 Cal. 3d 589 - Hawk v. State Bar

45 Cal. 3d 589 - Hawk v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
1
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

65 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 54 Cal. 3d 26 - Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991), 48 Cal. 3d 921 - Van Sloten v. State Bar (1989)

65 state decisions

2901988199020002010decided

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 15 Cal. 3d 878 - Segretti v. State Bar · 11 Cal. 3d 436 - Yokozeki v. State Bar · 8 Cal. 3d 798 - In Re Davis · 37 Cal. 3d 1 - Alberton v. State Bar · 43 Cal. 3d 543 - Greenbaum v. State Bar

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

  1. “An unsecured promissory note, by contrast, gives an attorney only a right to proceed against the client's assets in a contested judicial proceeding at which the client may dispute the indebtedness. The note allows the attorney to obtain a judgment, and to seek to enforce the judgment against the client's assets, if any. It does not give the attorney a present interest in the client's property which the attorney can summarily realize”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “unnecessary, since a promissory note is equally effective to embody the obligation for legal fees into a readily enforceable form”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “acquiring the ability to summarily extinguish the client's interest in property is what makes the acquisition `adverse'.”
    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.