Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 Cal. 3d 646 - Rose v. State Bar

49 Cal. 3d 646 - Rose v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
3
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably 32 Cal. 4th 682 - In Re Steele (2004), Ramirez v. Fuselier (In Re Ramirez) (1995)

33 state decisions

3001989199020002010decided

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 24 Cal. 3d 725 - In Re Marriage of Carney · 36 Cal. 3d 116 - Chefsky v. State Bar · 37 Cal. 3d 1 - Alberton v. State Bar · 31 Cal. 3d 785 - Colonial Life & Accident Insurance v. Superior Court · 43 Cal. 3d 802 - Beery 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A member of the State Bar shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership ... or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless (1) the transaction and terms in which the member of the State Bar acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in manner and terms which should have reasonably been understood by the client, (2) the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel of the client's choice on the transaction, and (3) the client consents in writing thereto.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]hen an attorney enters into business dealings with a client, `it is incumbent upon the attorney entering into such transactions to advise the client to seek independent counsel ... [and] failure to do so constitutes a violation of [former] rule 5-101.'”
    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.