Groper v. Taff’s Empirical Analysis
717 F.2d 1415 · 1983
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Royal Indemnity Co. v. J. C. Penney Co. (1986), Optyl Eyewear Fashion International Corp. v. Style Companies, Ltd. (1985)
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 10 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Truong Dinh Hung v. 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client, he shall withdraw from the conduct of the trial and his firm, if any, shall not continue representation in the trial, except that he may continue the representation and he or a lawyer in his firm may testify in the circumstances enumerated in DR 5-101(B)(1) through (4). (emphasis supplied)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“case would be presented through the testimony of an obviously interested witness who is subject to impeachment on that account ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“on the client because of the distinctive value of the lawyer in the case. DR 5-101(B). 29 The first three exceptions, concerning uncontested testimony, formalities and legal fees clearly were not applicable. The fourth exception which authorizes continued representation if an attorney's withdrawal worked”
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.