Johnson v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Taylor v. McNichols (2010), Warmbrodt v. Blanchard (1984)
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions
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 6 Cal. 3d 176 - Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand · Higa v. Mirikitani · Kurtenbach v. TeKippe · 29 Wash. App. 433 - Sherry v. Diercks · Beal v. Mars Larsen Ranch Corp., 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The elements of a legal malpractice action are: (a) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (b) thé existence of a duty on the part of the lawyer; (c) failure to perform the duty; and (d) the negligence of the lawyer must have been a proximate cause of the damage to the client.... As to the burden of proof in such cases ... ‘[t]he burden of proving that an attorney has been negligent or failed to act with proper skill and that damages resulted therefrom is on the plaintiff client’ and ... ‘[likewise, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the negligence of the attorney was a proximate cause of the client’s damage.’ ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In this case, the Johnson’s have failed to introduce any evidence that would suggest that Nagel’s failure to disclose the possible conflict of interest and obtain their consent before proceeding was a proximate cause of any of the damages alleged in their complaint____ Since there is nothing in the record that would support even an inference that Nagel’s failure to disclose his possible conflict of interest proximately caused the damages alleged by the Johnsons, the district court’s summary judgment is Affirmed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he burden of proving that an attorney has been negligent or failed to act with proper skill and that damages resulted therefrom is on the plaintiff client ... [l]ikewise, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the negligence of the attorney was a proximate cause of the client’s damage. [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jarman v. Hale
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.