2 Cal. 4th 606 - Laird v. Blacker’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 314 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 329 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Carvell v. Bottoms (1995), 11 Cal. 4th 583 - Adams v. Paul (1995)
1 federal appellate · 314 state decisions — followed in 18 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 6 Cal. 3d 176 - Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand · 6 Cal. 3d 195 - Budd v. Nixen · Heyer v. Flaig · 48 Cal. 3d 973 - Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. · Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold
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 329 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) The plaintiff has not sustained actual injury; "(2) The attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the specific subject matter in which the alleged wrongful act or omission occurred; "(3) The attorney willfully conceals the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission when such facts are known to the attorney [applicable only to the four-year period] ...; and "(4) The plaintiff is under a legal or physical disability which restricts the plaintiffs ability to commence legal action." (§ 340.6, subd. (a)(1)-(4).)”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“although appellate review may correct judicial error, and thus reduce the client's damages, an appeal does not necessarily exonerate the attorney, nor does it extinguish the client's action against him for negligence in the conduct of trial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Epstein v. Brown · E.P. v. Hogreve“To force malpractice plaintiffs to file their actions before they know the outcome of the case upon which their claim is based does not promote judicial economy. The status of the malpractice claim is uncertain until the appeal in the underlying case is resolved, because if it is ultimately decided in the client's favor the malpractice suit may well become moot for lack of damages.”
3 later decisions 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.