80 So. 2d 362 - Wall v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2010
1 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
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 Hazen v. Smith · Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. State · Revell v. Dishong · Holland v. McGill · 78 So. 2d 371 - Wall v. Johnson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`The general rule is that even though the attorney retains as payment for his services, or for some other debt owing by his client, under an agreement with the latter, part or all of the proceeds of a judgment recovered by the client which is subsequently reversed, he is not obliged to make restitution to the judgment debtor provided he acted in good faith in prosecuting the action in which the judgment was recovered. But if the judgment was void, or if the attorney knew if was obtained by fraud or he otherwise did not act in good faith in retaining the money, he is liable to make restitution.'" 80 So.2d at 363 . "Said judgment was not secured by fraud, error or deception. There is every showing of good faith on the part of counsel who secured it; there is no showing in equity to support restitution, in fact under the showing made, it would be most inequitable to require it. If ever a court was warranted in leaving a plaintiff where it found him to `stew in his own juice,' this is it." 80 So.2d at 364 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rule governing restitution in cases like this is well stated in 5 Am.Jur., Attorneys at Law, Section 147 (Cumulative Supplement 1954, page 41), as follows:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wright v. Lewis
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.