Cohen v. Lord’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus (1992), 6 Cal. 4th 409 - Howard v. Babcock (1993)
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 74 state decisions — followed in 17 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.
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As we made clear [in Cohen], restrictions on the practice of law, which include “financial disincentives” against competition as well as outright prohibitions, are objectionable primarily because they interfere with the client’s choice of counsel: a clause that penalizes a competing attorney by requiring forfeiture of income could “functionally and realistically discourage” a withdrawing partner from serving clients who might wish to be represented by that lawyer.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) A lawyer shall not be a party to or participate in a partnership or employment agreement with another lawyer that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice law after the termination of a relationship created by the agreement, except as a condition to payment of retirement benefits. (B) In connection with the settlement of a controversy or suit, a lawyer shall not enter into an agreement that restricts his right to practice law.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making: (a) a partnership or employment agreement that restricts the rights of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement; or (b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyers right to practice is part of the settlement of a controversy between private parties.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.