Christy v. Saliterman’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 146 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 167 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. (1977), Ralph W. Moores, Jr. v. Nathan Greenberg, Ralph W. Moores, Jr. v. Nathan Greenberg (1987)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 146 state decisions — followed in 27 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 Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. · Manion v. Tweedy · Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad · Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel · Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Chatterton
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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In an action against an attorney for negligence or breach of contract, the client has the burden of proving the existence of the relationship of attorney and client; the acts constituting the alleged negligence or breach of contract; that it was the proximate cause of the damage; and that but for such negligence or breach of contract the client would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action. * * * Once it has been established that the relationship of attorney and client exists and that plaintiff has sustained damages by reason of the attorney’s negligence or breach of contract, the right to recover is established.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[0]pinion evidence is not restricted to the testimony of the person best qualified to give an opinion or even to some of the few persons best qualified. One may be competent to testify as an expert although he is not shown to be highly qualified to speak upon the subject or is not at the top of his profession. It is usually held that any person whose profession or vocation deals with the subject at hand is entitled to be heard as an expert, while the value of his evidence is to be tested by cross-examination and ultimately determined by the jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“that the element of attorneys' fees, which plaintiff might have had to pay defendant had he successfully prosecuted the suit, was canceled out by the attorneys' fees plaintiff incurred in retaining counsel to establish that defendant failed to prosecute a recoverable action.”
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.