Kusch v. Ballard’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2018
9 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 581 So. 2d 1305 - State v. James · 531 F. Supp. 951 - Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co. · 575 So. 2d 630 - State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. KAW · 483 So. 2d 505 - GEN. ACC. v. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. · 409 So. 2d 1111 - Hamilton v. Hamilton Steel Corp.
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.
“I believe that the federal district court reads far too much in Hamilton to reach its conclusion that under Florida law, and inadvertent disclosure, by someone other than the client, amounts to a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.... [I]t is quite apparent that Hamilton does not address the specific issue of inadvertent disclosure by counsel of attorney-client information because the disclosure by counsel in Hamilton was clearly voluntary and intentional.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[M]otions for disqualification are viewed with skepticism because disqualification impinges on a party's right to employ a lawyer of choice. . . . Since the remedy of disqualification strikes at the heart of one of the most important associational rights, it must be employed only in extremely limited circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“We are taught from first year law school that waiver imports the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” [footnote omitted] Inadvertent production is the antithesis of that concept____ [A client’s] lawyer ... might well have been negligent in failing to cull the files of the letters before turning over the files. But if we are serious about the attorney-client privilege and its relation to the client’s welfare, we should require more than such negligence by counsel before the client can be deemed to have given up the privilege, [emphasis in original]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.