279 Pa. Super. 543 - Guy v. Liederbach’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘1. The employment of the attorney or other basis for duty; 2. The failure of the attorney to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge; and 3. That such negligence was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff.’ R. Mallen & V. Levit, Legal Malpractice 123 (1977)” * * *.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brooks v. Zebre · 545 F. Supp. 227 - Bowman v. Abramson

2. ““[U]nder certain circumstances, an attorney may be liable for damage caused by his negligence to a person intended to be benefitted by his performance irrespective of any lack of privity. In making the determination whether, in a particular case, the privity requirement should be dispensed with, the fact-finder shall employ a balancing test. This test, enunciated in the California case of Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal. 2d 583 , 15 Cal. Rptr. 821 , 364 P. 2d 685 , cert. denied 368 U.S. 987 , 82 S.Ct. 603 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 525 (1961), involves the weighing of several factors, to wit: the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff; the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff; the degree of certaintly that the plaintiff suffered injury; and the policy of preventing future harm.” Id. at 548 , 421 A. 2d 335 (emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 20 Pa. D. & C.3d 1 - Bearhalter v. Tracy