Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 U.S. 483 - In re Paschal

In re Paschal’s Empirical Analysis

77 U.S. 483 · 1870

Citation profile

145
cited by 145 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
August 2011
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 15 district · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 145 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011 · most notably Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society (1975), Trustees v. Greenough (1881)

32 federal appellate · 15 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 21 states

230187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ducat v. Chicago · Foster v. Jack

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

  1. ““If an attorney have collected money for his client, it is prima facie his duty, after deducting his own costs and disbursements, to pay it over to such client; and his refusal to do this, without some good excuse, is gross misconduct and dishonesty on his part, calculated to bring descredit on the court and on the administration of justice. It is this misconduct on which the court seizes as a ground of jurisdiction to compel him to pay the money, in conformity with his proféssional duty. The application against him in such cases is not equivalent, to an action of debt or assumpsit but is a quasi criminal proceeding, in which the question is not merely whether the attorney has received the money, but whether he has acted improperly and dishonestly in not paying it over. If no dishonesty appears the party will be left to his action. The attorney may have cross demands against his client, or there may be disputes between them on the subject proper for a jury or a court of law or equity to settle. If such appear to be the case, and no professional misconduct be shown to exist, the court will not exercise its summary jurisdiction.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The relations between counsel and client are of a very delicate and confidential character, and, unless the utmost confidence prevails between them, the client’s interest must necessarily suffer.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Whether in any ease, in virtue of an agreement made, an attorney may successfully resist an application of his client to substitute another in his place, we need not scop to inquire.””
    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.