Pirillo v. Pirillo’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 7 district · 96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Wood v. Georgia (1981), Commonwealth v. Holzer (1978)
8 federal appellate · 7 district · 96 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Calandra · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · United States v. Dionisio · Dent v. State of West Virginia
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our Supreme Court has observed: ‘A trial judge, in the exercise of his inherent power to control litigation over which he is presiding and his duty to supervise the conduct of lawyers practicing before him so as to prevent gross impropriety, has power to act where the facts warrant it.... Where a breach of ethics is made to appear, the relief is usually the granting of a motion to disqualify and remove the offending lawyer, and has been employed in this State as well as other jurisdictions. Slater v. Rimar Inc., [ ] 338 A.2d 584 , [589 (Pa. 1975) ] .,. The test for determining whether there is an impairing conflict is probability, not certainty ... A court is not bound to sit back and wait for a probability to ripen into a certainty; it may restrain conduct which has the potential for evolving into a breach of ethics before such conduct becomes ripe for disciplinary action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) whether the state’s interest can be effectively accomplished in some manner which will not infringe upon interests protected by constitutional rights; (2) whether the state interest is sufficiently compelling to justify the degree of infringement of those interests; (3) whether the state interest is sufficiently compelling to justify the degree of infringement that is necessary to effectuate that interest; and (4) whether the provision under challenge represents the narrowest possible infringement consistent with effectuating the state interest involved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A court is not bound to sit back and wait for a probability to ripen into a certainty; it may restrain conduct which has the potential for evolving into a breach of ethics before such conduct becomes ripe for disciplinary action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.