Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 Nev. 1025 - Morgano v. Smith

Morgano v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
22
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably 25 Cal. 4th 1194 - Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001), 19 Cal. 4th 532 - Wiley v. County of San Diego (1998)

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 22 states

2901994200020102020decided

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 American Trading Transportation Co. v. Escobar · Krahn v. Kinney · Carmel v. Lunney · Glenn v. Aiken · Stevens v. Bispham

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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) [a] duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) . . . proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a more appropriate forum to present [these] claims.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.