Computer One, Inc. v. Grisham & Lawless P.A.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 26 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]here are four requirements for the imposition of an attorney charging lien.” ... First, there must be a valid contract between the attorney and the client, although the contract need not be express.... Second, there must be a judgment, or “fund,” that resulted from the attorney’s services .... Third, the attorney must have given clear and unequivocal notice that he intends to assert a lien, and notice must be given to the “appropriate parties.” Finally, the lien must be timely — notice of the lien must be given “before the proceeds [from] the judgment have been distributed.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re K-Ram, Inc. · 223 W. Va. 357 - Trickett v. Laurita

2. ““The notion of fair notice implicit in Rule 1-013(A) follows one’s status as an opposing party. Nothing in that rule speaks about ‘degrees of hostility’ or a ‘sufficiently adversarial’ relationship, or other terms susceptible to a variety of interpretations, as a substitute for being an ‘opposing party.’ Nothing in Rule 1-013(A) would force a compulsory counterclaim on one who is not first a party.’ Given the grave consequences of Rule 1-013(A), we think that rule is better served by a sense of certainty and predictability implicit in the notion that one must first be a ‘party’ before one can be an ‘opposing party.’ . . . [A]n attorney does not transform his former client into either, merely by taking steps to secure attorney fees in the same underlying proceeding. “On the other hand, if the Firm had wanted to file a separate suit for breach of contract against Computer One for its attorney fees, then . . . Computer One would have had to press its legal malpractice allegations simultaneously as a compulsory counterclaim. [Citation omitted.] The Firm chose not to do so.” Computer One, 144 N.M. at 431 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Tilzer v. Davis, Bethune & Jones, L.L.C.

3. “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
   e.g. Adams v. Key