Jones v. Blume’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Wilkinson (2007), OAIC Commercial Assets v. STONEGATE VILLAGE (2007)
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 36 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 193rd Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. · City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority · Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis · KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp. · Johnson & Higgins of Texas, Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The limitations period for a breach of contract claim is four years. The issue of when a cause of action accrues is a question of law for the court. By moving for summary judgment on the affirmative defense of limitations, it is the defendant’s burden to establish as a matter of law the date a cause of action accrues. A breach of contract claim accrues when the contract is breached. The contract is not breached until a wrongful act occurs. A cause of action generally accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when facts come into existence that authorize a claimant to seek a judicial remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“These rules do not undertake to define standards of civil liability of lawyers for professional conduct. Violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct does not give rise to a private cause of action nor does it create any presumption that a legal duty to a client has been breached.... Accordingly, nothing in the rules should be deemed to augment any substantive legal duty of lawyers or the extra-disciplinary consequences of violating such a duty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and defendant; (2) the defendant must have breached his fiduciary duty to the plaintiff; and (3) the defendant's breach must result in injury to the plaintiff or benefit to the defendant.”
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.