Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 F.2d 763 - Leon Kroungold and Thaddeus S. Bochey v. Stanton L. Triester

Leon Kroungold and Thaddeus S. Bochey v. Stanton L. Triester’s Empirical Analysis

521 F.2d 763 · 1975

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
February 1999
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1999 · most notably Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord (1981), Woods v. Covington County Bank (1976)

41 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

440197519801990decided

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 Eisenstadt v. Baker · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Roaden v. Kentucky · World Airways, Inc. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. · Richardson v. Hamilton International Corp.

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

  1. “If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm may be called as a witness other than on behalf of his client, he may continue the representation until it is apparent that his testimony is or may be prejudicial to his client.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “shall become standards of conduct for attorneys of this Court.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “. . . the Special Committee for the Evaluation of Ethical Standards which drafted the Canons and the Disciplinary Rules, stated in its Comment on D.R. 5-102(B) that it 'was not designed to permit a lawyer to call opposing counsel as a witness and thereby disqualify him as counsel.'”
    3 later decisions 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.