Schiessle v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
717 F.2d 417 · 1983
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 11 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Manufacturing Co. (1984), Kala v. Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co. (1998)
20 federal appellate · 11 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co. · Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp. · Analytica Incorporated v. Npd Research Inc Schwartz & Freeman · LaSalle National Bank v. County of Lake
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"the size and structural divisions of the law firm involved, the likelihood of contact between the ‘infected’ attorney and the specific attorneys responsible for the present representation, the existence of rules which prevent the ‘infected’ attorney from access to relevant files or other information pertaining to the present litigation, or which prevent him from sharing in the fees derived from such litigation.””
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, we must determine whether a substantial relationship exists between the subject matter of the prior and present representations. If we conclude a substantial relationship does exist, we must next ascertain whether the presumption of shared confidences with respect to the prior representation has been rebutted. If we conclude this presumption has not been rebutted, we must then determine whether the presumption of shared confidences has been rebutted with respect to the present representation. Failure to rebut this presumption would also make disqualification proper.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e must determine whether the attorney whose change of employment created the disqualification issue was actually privy to any confidential information his prior law firm received from the party now seeking disqualification of his present firm. The evidence presented to rebut this presumption must “clearly and effectively” demonstrate that the attorney in question had no knowledge of the information, confidences and/or secrets related by the client in the prior representation.”
7 later decisions 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.