634 F. Supp. 2d 239 - Alexander v. Cahill’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 49 U.S.C. § 1136
Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. · Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio · Edenfield v. Fane
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs., tit. 22, § 1200.52: Solicitation and Recommendation of Professional Employment (b) For purposes of this Rule, “solicitation” means any advertisement initiated by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm that is directed to, or targeted at, a specific recipient or group of recipients, or their family members or legal representatives, the primary purpose of which is the retention of the lawyer or law firm, and a significant motive for which is pecuniary gain. It does not include a proposal or other writing prepared and delivered in response to a specific request of a prospective client. (e) No solicitation relating to a specific incident involving potential claims for personal injury or wrongful death shall be disseminated before the 30th day after the date of the incident, unless a filing must be made within 30 days of the incident as a legal prerequisite to the particular claim, in which case no unsolicited communication shall be made before the 15th day after the date of the incident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Alexander v. Cahill“N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs., tit. 22, § 1200.50(c): (c) An advertisement shall not: (1) include an endorsement of, or testimonial about, a lawyer or law firm from a client with respect to a matter that is still pending ... (3) include the portrayal of a judge, the portrayal of a fictitious law firm, the use of a fictitious name to refer to lawyers not associated together in a law firm, or otherwise imply that lawyers are associated in a law firm if that is not the case ... (5) rely on techniques to obtain attention that demonstrate a clear and intentional lack of relevance to the selection of counsel, including the portrayal of lawyers exhibiting characteristics clearly unrelated to legal competence ... (7) utilize a nickname, moniker, motto or trade name that implies an ability to obtain results in a matter. 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Alexander v. Cahill
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.