Huff v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 301 Ill. App. 3d 349 - Lucey v. Law Offices of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered · 86 Wash. 2d 215 - Gazija v. Nicholas Jerns Co. · Keller v. City of Spokane · 87 Wash. 2d 400 - Peters v. Simmons · 29 Wash. App. 433 - Sherry v. Diercks
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“damage” as opposed to “damages” which are the monetary value of the injury or damage proximately caused by the breach of alleged duty. Id. 20 . Because there is no continuing harm, it is not necessary to address the issue of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the legal malpractice context, injury is the invasion of another's legal interest, while damages are the monetary value of those injuries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jensen v. Young“`discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts which give rise to his or her cause of action.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.