Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 751 P2D 344 - Carlson v. Langdon

Carlson v. Langdon’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
4
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

3 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2024

3 district · 13 state decisions

8019881990200020102020decided

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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord · Harris v. McRae · First Investment Annuity Co. of America v. Miller · In re Vendo Co.

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

  1. “In its ruling, the trial court further indicated that disqualification was not required because, even if it assumed the existence of the attorney-client relationship, there was nothing to show that any confidential information had been communicated. Rule 1.9, W.R.P.C., and the eases out of which it evolved, do not require any showing of disclosure of confidential information. The correct interpretation is that the communication of confidential information is presumed once a showing is made that the matter in which an attorney formerly provided representation is substantially related to matters in the pending action. [[Image here]] The majority rule is that the presumption of disclosure is not rebuttable when the interests of the previous client are adverse to a client whom the attorney now is representing.* * * * We adopt the rule of ir-rebuttable presumption* * *.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If the two matters have common facts, the attorney is in a position to receive confidential information which possibly could be used to the detriment of the former client in the later proceeding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the irre-buttable presumption with respect to the individual attorney offers greater assurance that confidential information will be protected and assists in avoiding any appearance of impropriety. It also protects the former client from disclosing the very confidential information he seeks to protect in order to establish justification for disqualification in the later proceeding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.