Morrison v. Watkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 district · 31 state decisions

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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “The premise of the continuous representation rule is to avoid unnecessarily disrupting the attorney-client relationship. Adoption of this rule was a direct reaction to the absurd requirement of the occurrence rule which requires the client to sue his attorney even though the relationship continues and there has not been and may never be any damage. The rule, limited to the context of continuous representation, is consistent with the purpose of the statute of limitations which is to prevent stale claims and enable the defendant to preserve evidence. Where the attorney continues to represent the client in the subject matter in which the error has occurred, all such objectives are achieved and preserved. The attorney-client relationship is maintained and speculative malpractice litigation is avoided. “ ‘ ‘The rule of continuous representation is equally available and appropriate in those jurisdictions adopting the damage and discovery rules. The policy reasons are as compelling for permitting an attorney to continue his efforts to remedy a bad result, even if some damages have occurred and even if the client is fully aware of the attorney’s error. The doctrine is fair to all parties concerned. The attorney has the opportunity to remedy, avoid or establish that there was no error or attempt to mitigate the damages. The client is not forced to terminate this relationship, although the option exists. This result is consistent with any expressed policy basis for the statute of ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 26 Kan. App. 2d 151 - Gansert v. Corder · 47 Kan. App. 2d 619 - Dunn v. Dunn

2. “(1) The occurrence rule — the statute begins to run at the occurrence of the lawyer’s negligent act or omission. (2) The damage rule — the client does not accrue a cause of action for malpractice until he suffers appreciable harm or actual damage as a consequence of his lawyer’s conduct. (3) The discovery rule — the statute does not begin to run until the client discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the material facts essential to his cause of action against the attorney. (4) The continuous representation rule — the client’s cause of action does not accrue until the attorney-client relationship is terminated.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 26 Kan. App. 2d 151 - Gansert v. Corder · 944 F. Supp. 842 - Turner and Boisseau v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

3. “<£We must first decide whether K.S.A. 59-1717[ 10 ] applies only when the expenses are incurred during the administration of the trust rather than after the trustees’ dismissals. While Kansas has not addressed the issue of whether former trustees should be allowed their expenses for litigation that occurred as the result of their actions as trustees, at least one court has so ruled. See Preston Corp. v. Reeves, 762 F.Supp. 948 (N.D.Ga.1991) (holding that a former trustee’s defense of its actions as trustee are chargeable to the trust). A trustee should be able to recover expenses regardless of whether the trustee was sitting at the time the suit was instigated as long as the reason for the suit was an action which occurred while the trustee was a trustee. We therefore conclude that under K.S.A. 59-1717, a trustee is entitled to expenses necessarily incurred in successfully defending the trustee’s actions as trastee even when those expenses are incurred after the trustee’s termination as trustee.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ladd v. Stockham