Clay v. Doherty’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2003 · most notably 177 Ill. 2d 239 - People v. Steidl (1997), Coleman v. Smith (1987)
6 federal appellate · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Owen v. City of Independence · Polk County v. Dodson · Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co. · In re United States
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(B) A lawyer shall not continue multiple employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by his representation of another client, or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests, except to the extent permitted under DR 5-105(C). (C) In the situations covered by DR 5-105(A) and (B), a lawyer may represent multiple clients if it is obvious that he can adequately represent the interest of each and if each consents to the representation after full disclosure of the possible effect of such representation on the exercise of his independent professional judgment on behalf of each....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the client consents after consultation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This District Court’s General Rule 3.54(B), adopted in the exercise of the Court’s inherent authority to regulate practice before it (see Schloetter v. Railoc of Indiana, Inc., 546 F.2d 706, 710 (7th Cir.1976)), establishes the Code as the standard applicable to lawyer disci pline. Although that would not necessarily make the Code the benchmark for lawyer disqualification as well, courts have consistently treated it that way.”
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.