Phillips v. Clancy’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
10 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997), 87 Cal. App. 4th 953 - Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001)
10 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Butz v. Economou · 79 Wash. 2d 12 - State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Junker · 34 Cal. App. 3d 858 - Merritt v. Reserve Insurance · 122 Wis. 2d 94 - Helmbrecht v. St. Paul Insurance · 104 Wash. 2d 254 - Daugert v. Pappas
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship which imposes a duty on the attorney to exercise that degree of skill, care, and knowledge commonly exercised by members of the profession, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) that such negligence was a proximate cause of resulting injury, and (4) the fact and extent of the injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Public policy considerations militate against the trial judge testifying as an expert witness in litigation involving parties who previously appeared before him. Ethical mandates governing judicial conduct dictate that a judge should not create the appearance of impropriety. Opinion testimony by a judge creates the appearance of partiality on behalf of a litigant, is greatly prejudicial to the adverse party, and raises the suspicion of judicial favoritism in the prior litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCool v. Gehret“Under a subjective standard ... the arbiter from the first [action] would be asked to testify concerning the effect, if any, of the attorney's actions on the outcome of the underlying case. Under an objective standard, the trier in the malpractice [action] views the first [action] from the standpoint of what a reasonable judge or jury would have decided, but for the attorney's negligence.”
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.