Krawczyk v. Stingle’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 14 district · 174 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 200 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Gazo v. City of Stamford (2001), Jackson v. R. G. Whipple, Inc. (1993)
3 federal appellate · 14 district · 174 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Alder v. United States · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · 56 Cal. 2d 583 - Lucas v. Hamm · 92 Ill. 2d 13 - Pelham v. Griesheimer
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 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] central dimension of the attorney-client relationship is the attorney's duty of [e]ntire devotion to the interest of the client.... This obligation would be undermined were an attorney to be held liable to third parties if, due to the attorney's delay, the testator [client] did not have an opportunity to execute estate planning documents prior to death. Imposition of liability would create an incentive for an attorney to exert pressure on a client to complete and execute estate planning documents summarily. Fear of liability to potential third party beneficiaries would contravene the attorney's primary responsibility to ensure that the proposed estate plan effectuate[d] the client's wishes ....”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“attorneys are not liable to persons other than their clients for the negligent rendering of services.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“the primary or direct purpose of the transaction was to benefit the third party.”
7 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.