Henderson v. Floyd’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably National Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Godbey (1996), In Re Epic Holdings, Inc. (1998)
1 federal appellate · 24 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont))
Relationships
Relies on NCNB Texas National Bank v. Coker · Spears v. Fourth Court of Appeals · Ayres v. Canales · Phoenix Founders, Inc. v. Marshall · Grant v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Without prior consent, a lawyer who personally has formally represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in a matter adverse to the former client: * * * (3) if it is the same or substantially related matter. [[Image here]] (b) except to the extent authorized by Rule 1.10 [successive government and private employment], when lawyers are or have become members of or associated ■with a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client if anyone of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by paragraph (a).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Without prior consent, a lawyer who personally has formally represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in a matter adverse to the former client: [[Image here]] (3) if it is the same or a substantially related matter. [[Image here]] (b) Except to the extent authorized by Rule 1.10 [concerning successive government and private employment] when lawyers are or have become members of or associated with a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client if any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by paragraph (a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Butler“Rule 1.09 cannot be an absolute test for disqualification of counsel”
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.