Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 F.3d 569 - Freeman v. Mayer

Freeman v. Mayer’s Empirical Analysis

95 F.3d 569 · 1996

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
6
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2017

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

80199620002010decided

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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · In re Dunnuck · Baer v. First Options of Chicago, Inc. · Suyemasa v. Myers · 181 Ind. App. 603 - Jay Clutter Custom Digging v. English

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. “It would be unfortunate indeed for our economy, which is no longer "merely" national but increasingly international, to strain to interpret the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct in a way that would discourage ... clients from seeking out the lawyer of their choice, no matter what state the lawyer may be licensed in. Freeman did nothing unusual: he took a case for old friends, he associated himself with local counsel when it appeared that court proceedings in another jurisdiction would be required, and he reduced his agreement both with his client and his co-counsel to writing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he Indiana Supreme Court both indicated what rules of conduct it deemed appropriate for lawyers admitted to practice before it, and what force those rules were to have in ancillary matters. As something designed to provide guidance, but not to be a basis for civil liability, our best prediction is that the Indiana Supreme Court would not permit one of its attorneys to invoke Rule 1.5(e) as a shield against living up to a substantively unobjectionable contractual arrangement with an out-of-state lawyer. 12”
    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.