Nolan v. Judicial Council’s Empirical Analysis
481 F.2d 41 · 1973
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2015 · most notably In Re Roberts (1985), Union Bank of Los Angeles v. Nolan (1973)
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 556 · 11 U.S.C. § 557 · 11 U.S.C. § 558 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 332 · 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 28 U.S.C. § 46
Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · Perry v. Sindermann · Barr v. Matteo · In the Matter of John Ruffalo Jr · Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a lawyer is requested to undertake or to continue representation of multiple clients having potentially differing interests, he must weigh carefully the possibility that his judgment may be impaired or his loyalty divided if he accepts or continues employment. He should resolve all doubts against the propriety of the representation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“No district judge or panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, no matter how constituted, has the power to question the action of the Judicial Council of the Third Circuit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“RESOLVED that in all bankruptcy proceedings this Council holds as incom- patible the continued representation as attorney for the trustee by any lawyer or his firm who represents a third party who submits a plan for reorganization in the bankruptcy; and that recusal by the attorney only from commenting on proposed reorganization plans is not an adequate immunization from the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.