Griggs v. Nash’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 state decisions

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.

1. “4. An action to recover damages for professional malpractice, ... shall be deemed to have accrued as of the time of the occurrence, act or omission complained of, and the limitation period shall not be extended by reason of any continuing consequences or damages resulting therefrom or any continuing professional or commercial relationship between the injured party and the alleged wrongdoer, ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bonz v. Sudweeks · Hawley v. Green

2. “B. Defendants are entitled to Attorney Fees Pursuant to I.C. Section 12-121 and I.R.C.P. Rule 54(e)(1). The Defendants have been sued for legal malpractice for (1) negligently entering into an agreement for the settlement of the Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim against Van-Gas without the Plaintiff’s authority (Count One of Plaintiff’s Complaint) and (2) for wrongfully representing to the Plaintiff that Defendant had entered into a binding settlement agreement of Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim with Van-Gas. The allegations in Count One are refuted by the Plaintiff’s own admissions. See Thompson Depo. [references deleted]. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel has expressly admitted that Thompson authorized Defendant to settle Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim for $15,000. See page 2, paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Acting under this express authority from the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered into an oral agreement with Van-Gas’s legal counsel for the settlement of the Plaintiff’s wrongful termination action against Van-Gas for the sum of $15,-000.00. No wrongful misrepresentation is involved in the Defendant advising the Plaintiff that the oral agreement that she entered into with Van-Gas’s counsel for the settlement of Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim, as was admittedly expressly authorized by the Plaintiff, was a binding settlement agreement. It follows that this Court must conclude that this action was”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thompson v. Pike

3. “[I]n Streib v. Veigel, 109 Idaho 174 , 706 P.2d 63 (1985), this Court extended the date for the accrual of actions for professional malpractice where the negligence is continuing, until the date that damage occurred. In Streib , an accountant had negligently prepared income tax returns for taxpayers, claiming certain deductions that were not allowable. The taxpayers filed an action against the accountant more than two years after the last return was prepared. The accountant moved for summary judgment on the basis of I.C. § 5-219(4). This Court held that the action for professional malpractice accrued when the Internal Revenue Service assessed the taxpayers for penalties and interest due to the deductions that were not allowable. The Court characterized the negligence of the accountant as “continuing in nature until [the taxpayers] suffer damage.” 109 Idaho at 179 , 706 P.2d at 68 . The assessment by the IRS was considered by the Court to be the date when damage to the taxpayers occurred. The taxpayers were allowed two years after that date within which to file their action against the accountant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chicoine v. Bignall