641 So. 2d 69 - Faro v. Romani’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 652 So. 2d 366 - SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA v. Poletz (1995), Augustson v. Linea Aerea Nacional-Chile S.A. (1996)
1 federal appellate · 24 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
Relies on 409 So. 2d 1016 - Rosenberg v. Levin · 632 So. 2d 1018 - In Re Advisory Opinion to Atty. Gen. · Beaumont v. J. H. Hamlen & Son · 607 So. 2d 412 - The Florida Bar v. Hollander · 629 So. 2d 872 - Faro v. Romani
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen an attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits all rights to compensation .... We further hold, however, that if the client’s conduct makes the attorney’s continued performance of the contract either legally impossible or would cause the attorney to violate an ethical rule of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, that attorney may be entitled to a fee when the contingency of an award occurs.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“an attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits all rights to compensation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“WHETHER IN AN ACTION ON A CHARGING LIEN, A TRIER OF FACT MAY CONCLUDE ON DISPUTED EVIDENCE THAT COUNSEL IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONTINGENCY OF THE FEE CONTRACT, WHERE COUNSEL IS FOUND TO HAVE JUSTIFICATION AND GOOD CAUSE FOR WITHDRAWING APART FROM, OR IN ADDITION TO, DISAGREEMENTS OVER SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.