950 F. Supp. 123 - Ficker v. Curran’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
September 2006
most recently cited
1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Bates v. State Bar of Arizona · Edenfield v. Fane · In re R. M. J. · Florida Bar v. Went for It, Inc.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No evidence in the files reflects that citizens generally find it offensive that attorneys offer information and services to traffic and criminal defendants who, in fact, desperately need them. Therefore, it is our view that this portion of the bill is unconstitutional and should not be enforced.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ficker v. Curran · Ficker v. Curran“unlike the typical personal injury plaintiffs, criminal defendants are in litigation against the State. Thus, the effect of the law, if not its intent, is to make it more difficult for our opponents to get legal representation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ficker v. Curran · Ficker v. Curran“failed to demonstrate that § 1(a)(2) advances in a direct and material way any 'substantial interest' identified by the State.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ficker v. Curran · Ficker v. Curran
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.