Wolman v. Walter, 444 U.S. 801 (1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Wolman v. Walter, 444 U.S. 801 (1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case · “lawyers who represent clients in matrimonial dissolutions have a special responsibility for full and fair disclosure, for a searching dialogue, about all of the facts that materially affect the client’s rights and interests”
125 citation events (33 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Grayson v. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & Kuriansky (conn, 1994-08-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Grayson v. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & Kuriansky
Conn. · 1994 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
lawyers who represent clients in matrimonial dissolutions have a special responsibility for full and fair disclosure, for a searching dialogue, about all of the facts that materially affect the client's rights and interests
cited Cited "see" Ackerman v. Sobol Family Partnership, LLP
Conn. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Monroe v. Monroe, 177 Conn. 173, 181 , 413 A.2d 819 (“[i]t is hornbook law that clients generally are bound by the acts of their attorneys”), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 801 , 100 S. Ct. 20 , 62 L.
cited Cited "see" Dubaldo v. Dubaldo
Conn. App. Ct. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Monroe v. Monroe, 177 Conn. 173, 182-83 , 413 A.2d 819 , appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 801 , 100 S. Ct. 20 , 62 L.
cited Cited "see" Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Tucker
Conn. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Monroe v. Monroe, 177 Conn. 173, 185 , 413 A.2d 819 , appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 801 , 100 S. Ct. 20 , 62 L.
discussed Cited "see" Kenworthy v. Kenworthy
Conn. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case and given its context; see Monroe v. Monroe, 177 Conn. 173, 182-83 , 413 A.2d 819 , appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 801 , 100 S. Ct. 20 , 62 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Damato - Kushel
Conn. · 2017 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Although it is well established that counsel often functions as an agent of the defendant; see, e.g., Monroe v. Monroe , 177 Conn. 173 , 181, 413 A.2d 819 , appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 801 , 100 S.Ct. 20 , 62 L.Ed.2d 14 (1979) ; it is equally well established that the privileges, rights, and responsibilities of counsel are not identical to those of the defendant.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Damato - Kushel
Conn. · 2017 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Although it is well established that counsel often functions as an agent of the defendant; see, e.g., Monroe v. Monroe, 177 Conn. 173, 181 , 413 A.2d 819 , appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 801 , 100 S. Ct. 20 , 62 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Spencer v. Star Steel Structures, Inc.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
Once it is determined that a tribunal has authority or competence to decide the class of cases to which the action belongs, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is resolved in favor of entertaining the action.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724, 727-28 , 724 A.2d 1084 (1999); see also Monroe v. Monroe, 177 Conn. 173, 185 , 413 A.2d 819 , appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 801 , 100 S. Ct. 20 , 62 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Abreu v. Callahan
S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Letourneau v. Califano, 453 F.Supp. 636, 638 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (three judge court) ("only minimal scrutiny is to he given federal statutory distinctions involving aliens”), appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 805 , 100 S.Ct. 26 , 62 L.Ed.2d 18 (1979). 74 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wolman
v.
Walter
No. 78-1882.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1979.
444 U.S. 801
Brennan, Stewart.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 67%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Connecticut (1)

Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. Ohio.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent.