Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 Md. App. 483 - Watson v. Watson

73 Md. App. 483 - Watson v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
November 2000
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 2000

18 state decisions

80198819902000decided

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 Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper · Hall v. Cole · D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc. of Ohio v. Frick Co. · Schultz v. Pritts · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,131

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents after consultation. (c) The consultation required by paragraphs (a) and (b) shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and any limitations resulting from the lawyer’s responsibilities to another, or from the lawyer’s own interests, as well as the advantages and risks involved.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Like other sanctions, attorney’s fees certainly should not be assessed lightly or without fair notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record. It may be that under some circumstances due process would require us to hold a hearing to decide whether sanctions should apply, and if so, the appropriate amount to be assessed, and against whom the assessment should be made. See, e.g., Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 710 F.2d 516, 522-23 (9th Cir.1983) (attorney fee sanction improper where attorneys denied notice, opportunity to respond, and hearing).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) Action maintained in bad faith.—If the arbitration panel finds that the conduct of any party in maintaining or defending any action is in bad faith or without substantial justification, the panel may require the offending party, the attorney advising the conduct, or both, to pay to the adverse party the costs of the proceeding and reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the adverse party in opposing it. A determination made under the subsection shall become part of the panel award and subject to judicial review.”
    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.