Franko v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Leyba v. Whitley (1995), Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. (2001)
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 34 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 Helfat v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Heyer v. Flaig · Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp. · Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland · Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Arizona rule is that in order for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention to benefit that person must be indicated in the contract itself, Irwin v. Murphey, 81 Ariz. 148 , 302 P.2d 534 (1956); Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company, 15 Ariz. App. 35 , 485 P.2d 859 (1971). The contemplated benefit must be both intentional and direct, Irwin, supra, Treadway v. Western Cotton Oil Etc. Co., 40 Ariz. 125 , 10 P.2d 371 (1932), and “it must definitely appear that the parties intend to recognize the third party as the primary party in interest,” Irwin, supra, [81 Ariz.] at 154, 302 P.2d at 538 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he better view is that the determination of whether, in a specific case, the attorney will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injuries suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, and the policy of preventing future harm.”
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.