Brunacini v. Kavanagh’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Duncan v. Campbell (1997), Sharts v. Natelson (1994)
2 district · 37 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 Grunwald v. Bronkesh · Hughes v. Mahaney & Higgins · 160 Wis. 2d 144 - Hennekens v. Hoerl · Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard · 592 So. 2d 678 - Rahming v. State
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[wjhile the nature of the claim to attorney fees is related substantially enough to [the attorney’s] efforts to effect the settlement and to his discharge without cause so as to have given rise to a compulsory counterclaim for malpractice to a complaint for collection of professional fees, we are hesitant to accord res judicata effect to all issues and claims that might have been raised in response to a motion for fees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In the present case the claim for malpractice and the claim for legal fees have a common origin (the opinion letter) and a common subject matter (the performance of legal services). The two claims are logically related, and, absent some other consideration, the claim for legal malpractice was a compulsory counterclaim to the [l]aw [fjirm’s claim for legal fees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Adams v. Key“Although the time when a party is deemed to have discovered [the basis for a claim] is generally a question of fact, nevertheless, where the undisputed facts show that [p]laintiffs knew, or should have been aware of the negligent conduct on or before a specific date, the issue may be decided as a matter of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Stewart
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.