Bingham v. Zolt’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 719 F. Supp. 222 - O'BRIEN v. National Property Analysts Partners (1989), Barker v. American Mobil Power Corp. (1995)
2 federal appellate · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1359
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Marino v. United States · Kahn v. Grant · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Commonwealth National Bank v. Ashe
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.
“(1) precisely what statements were made in what documents or oral misrepresentations or what omissions were made, (2) the time and place of each such statement and the person responsible for making (or, in the case of not making) the same, (3) the context of such statements and the manner in which they misled the plaintiffs, and (4) what the defendants obtained as a consequence of the fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Formality is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney, and since '[t]he initial arrangements for representation are often informal ... it is necessary to look at the words and actions of the parties.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“For an attorney to act as a legal representative, a contract of employment, either express or implied, must exist between the attorney and the party for whom he purports to act.”
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.