Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 937 P2D 297 - Griffith v. Taylor

Griffith v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
7
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

1 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2019

1 district · 15 state decisions

90199720002010decided

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 113 F. Supp. 265 - T. C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. · Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co. · Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp. · EF Hutton & Company v. Brown · Peterson v. Wirum

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. “an attorney "may not represent a third party against a former client where there exists a substantial possibility that knowledge gained by him in the earlier professional relationship can be used against the former client, or where the subject matter of his present undertaking has a substantial relationship to that of the prior representation." [ 11 ]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[the substantial relationship test for determining disqualification of an attorney is a prophylactic rule which obviates the need for the former client to demonstrate that confidential information was actually disclosed in the course of the prior representation.”
    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.