Brody v. Ruby’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 92 Ill. 2d 13 - Pelham v. Griesheimer (1982), Mozzochi v. Beck (1987)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 65 state decisions — followed in 22 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 International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · 56 Cal. 2d 583 - Lucas v. Hamm · Heyer v. Flaig · Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz · Hoppe v. Klapperich
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[In developing a standard for reviewing a lawyer’s decision to file suit], we must be ever mindful that an attorney’s role is to facilitate access to our judicial system for any person seeking legal relief. As such, probable cause is not to be judged merely upon some personal assessment of a claim’s merit. It must encompass consideration of the law’s desire to fully meet the client’s needs. While an attorney is under an ethical duty to avoid suit where its only purpose is to harass or injure, if a balance must be struck between the desire of an adversary to be free from unwarranted accusations and the need of the client for undivided loyalty, the client’s interests must be paramount. ... We thus emphasize that any standard of probable cause must insure that the attorney’s “duty to his client to present his case vigorously in a manner as favor able to the client as the rules of law and professional ethics will permit” is preserved. ... We recognize that through an effort to protect every citizen’s free access to the courts some innocent persons may suffer the publicity, expense and other burdens of defending ill-founded lawsuits. While this is regrettable, the chilling effect that a broad rule of attorney liability would have upon the legal system, and ultimately upon its popular acceptance as a means of dispute resolution, appears to outweigh the value of the protection it would afford to those who might be deemed “innocent” defendants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nelson v. Miller · Wilson v. Hayes“Absent special circumstances, it generally is held an attorney can be liable for consequences of professional negligence only to a client. . . . The courts reason that if liability would be permitted to a third party without regard to privity, the parties to the contract would be deprived of control of their own agreement. Further, the duty to the general public resulting from abandonment of the privity requirement would place a potentially unlimited burden on lawyers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because our rule 237 is patterned on rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal interpretations are persuasive.”
2 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.