Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 560 F.3d 536 - Brandon v. Blech

Brandon v. Blech’s Empirical Analysis

560 F.3d 536 · 2009

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2020

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

90200920102020decided

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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. · United States v. Mack · Whiting v. Lacara · United States v. Green

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

  1. “(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled; . (6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden .on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or . (7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] district court may forbid withdrawal if it would work severe prejudice on the client or third parties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if: (1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent; (2) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud; (3) the client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent; [or] (6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.”
    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.