Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Powers v. Stategreen2 sentences2015As the Court of Criminal Appeals has stated, “[a]lthough an ethics rule may be relied upon to show that an alleged violation infringed the complaining party's right to a fair trial or otherwise affected substantial rights, a complaining party's right is not grounded in the disciplinary rule itself. “ Powers v. State, 165 S.W.3d 357, 359 (Tex. Crim. 2007X, § 9); see Powers v. State, 165 S.W.3d 357, 358 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) ("an ethics rule may be relied upon to show that an alleged violation infringed the complaining party's right to a fair trial or otherwise affecting substantial rights;" however, "a complaining party's right is not grounded in the disciplinary rule itself."). [198] The dissenting opinion contends that the competence or disqualification of Garza is a moot issue. | 2 | 2 |
House v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See , e.g. , House v. State , 947 S.W.2d 251, 252-53 (Tex. Crim. 2005See, e.g., House v. State, 947 S.W.2d 251, 252-53 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). | 2 | 2 |
Cantey Hanger, Llp v. Philip Gregory Byrd, Lucy Leasing Co., L.L.C., and Pgb Air, Inc.green1 sentence2020See id. | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015App. 2005); see also Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544, 553 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Amendment to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar re Rules of Professional Conductgreen2 sentences2008In re Amendment to Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar re Rules of Prof'l Conduct, 838 So.2d 1140, 1141-1142 (Fla.2003); see also In re Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Fla., 220 So.2d 6, 7, 9 (Fla.1969) (refusing to approve an ethics rule that would have prohibited an employee-attorney from representing anyone other than the employer "unless it shall clearly appear that the sole financial interest and risk involved is that of the lay agency”). . 705 Ill. 2008Ct.2003) (unpublished table decision), pet. denied 578 Pa. 695 , 851 A.2d 142 (2004) (unpublished decision per curiam). [83] In re Amendment to Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar re Rules of Prof'l Conduct, 838 So.2d 1140, 1141-1142 (Fla.2003); see also In re Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Fla., 220 So.2d 6, 7, 9 (Fla. 1969) (refusing to approve an ethics rule that would have prohibited an employee-attorney from representing anyone other than the employer "unless it shall clearly appear that the sole financial interest and risk involved is that of the lay agency"). [84] 705 ILL.COMP. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Rules Governing Conduct of Attorneys in Fla.green2 sentences2008In re Amendment to Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar re Rules of Prof'l Conduct, 838 So.2d 1140, 1141-1142 (Fla.2003); see also In re Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Fla., 220 So.2d 6, 7, 9 (Fla.1969) (refusing to approve an ethics rule that would have prohibited an employee-attorney from representing anyone other than the employer "unless it shall clearly appear that the sole financial interest and risk involved is that of the lay agency”). . 705 Ill. 2008Ct.2003) (unpublished table decision), pet. denied 578 Pa. 695 , 851 A.2d 142 (2004) (unpublished decision per curiam). [83] In re Amendment to Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar re Rules of Prof'l Conduct, 838 So.2d 1140, 1141-1142 (Fla.2003); see also In re Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Fla., 220 So.2d 6, 7, 9 (Fla. 1969) (refusing to approve an ethics rule that would have prohibited an employee-attorney from representing anyone other than the employer "unless it shall clearly appear that the sole financial interest and risk involved is that of the lay agency"). [84] 705 ILL.COMP. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dillard v. Berryman
green
1 sentence2020Rule 1.09(b) provides: “Except to the extent authorized by Rule 1.10, 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).”64 Comment 1 of Rule 1.09 says that the rule applies to a lawyer who switches from one private firm to another, and that a lawyer who moves from government to private employment is governed by Rule 1.10.65 Rule 1.10 provides that “a lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer | 1 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Louis Leonard Kitchin, Jr.
green
1 sentence2020Rule 1.09(b) provides: “Except to the extent authorized by Rule 1.10, 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).”64 Comment 1 of Rule 1.09 says that the rule applies to a lawyer who switches from one private firm to another, and that a lawyer who moves from government to private employment is governed by Rule 1.10.65 Rule 1.10 provides that “a lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.