Engebretson v. Putnam’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 1996
23 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 Crncevich v. Georgetown Recreation Corporation · Kober v. Stewart · State Ex Rel. Malott v. Board of County Commissioners · Fulton v. Clark · Duncan v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We disapprove of an award of attorney fees based on this type of documentation. We have previously approved guidelines for such an award. Crncevich v. Georgetown Recreation Corp., 168 Mont. 113 , 541 P.2d 56 (1975). * * * “The retainer agreement between plaintiff and her attorney does not conform to the above requirements. The result of the negotiations between an attorney and his client as to their fee agreement is not controlling in fixing a reasonable attorney fee to assess against the opposing party. Such an award must be determined in accordance with the guidelines enumerated in Crncevich.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The circumstances to be considered in determining the compensation to be recovered are the amount and character of the services rendered; the labor, time, and trouble involved, the character and importance of litigation in which the services were rendered, the amount of money or the value of property to be affected, the professional skill and experience called for, the character and standing in the profession of the attorneys; . . . the result secured by the services of the attorneys may be considered as an important element in determining their value.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to encourage judicial economy through the elimination of unnecessary trial, delay and expense. [Citations omitted.] Summary judgment is not a substitute for trial, however, and is inappropriate when genuine issues of material fact remain to be litigated . . .” 571 P.2d at 370 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.