State v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. “[T]he former client need show no more than that the matters embraced within the pending suit wherein his former attorney appears on behalf of his adversary are substantially related to the matters or cause of action wherein the attorney previously represented him, the former client. The Court will assume that during the course of the former representation confidences were disclosed to the attorney bearing on the subject matter of the representation. It will not inquire into their nature and extent. Only in this manner can the lawyer’s duty of absolute fidelity be enforced and the spirit of the rule relating to privileged communications be maintained.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whitaker v. Commonwealth · 649 So. 2d 519 - State v. Gardner

2. “[Although art. 680 expressly requires re-cusation when the district attorney was previously employed ‘in the case,’ the ethical rules and the jurisprudence impose a broader gloss on the statutory requirement by providing for recusation when the district attorney was previously employed in ‘a substantially related matter.’”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sylvas · 649 So. 2d 519 - State v. Gardner

3. “In [ United States v. ] Kitchin, [ 592 F.2d 900, 904 (5th Cir., cert. denied, 444 U.S. 843 , 100 S.Ct. 86 , 62 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979)], the court rejected the idea that confidential information must have been disclosed in order for the recusation to be proper and stated: So long as the affected party can show that the matters involved in the previous representation are substantially related to those in an action in which the attorney represents an adverse party, the former client is entitled to the disqualification of the lawyer. . . . . The aggrieved party need not prove that [the lawyer] actually obtained confidential information nor that he has or will disclose it to his present employer. Similarly, the Eighth Circuit in [ State of Arkansas v. ] Dean Foods [ Products Co., 605 F.2d 380, 383 (8th Cir.1979)] reiterated the rule for attorney disqualification: [T]he former client need show no more than that the matters embraced within the pending suit wherein his former attorney appears on behalf of his adversary are substantially related to the matters or cause of action [where] the attorney previously represented him, the former client. The Court will assume that during the course of the former representation confidences were disclosed to the attorney bearing on the subject matter of the representation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 649 So. 2d 519 - State v. Gardner · 956 So. 2d 83 - State v. Baker