Flaherty v. Weinberg’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 38 district · 163 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 220 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 136 Wis. 2d 304 - Green Spring Farms v. Kersten (1987), Faya v. Almaraz (1993)
6 federal appellate · 38 district · 163 state decisions — followed in 16 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 MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · Ultramares Corp. v. Touche · 56 Cal. 2d 583 - Lucas v. Hamm · Glanzer v. . Shepard
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 220 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]e think it clear that Maryland, as a general rule, adheres to the strict privity rule in attorney malpractice cases. The sole exception that we have recognized to this rule is the third party beneficiary theory. Although this exception is ‘peculiarly applicable’ to contract actions, ... its scope has a broader range. In our view, the scope of duty concept in negligence actions may be analogized to the third party beneficiary concept in the context of attorney malpractice cases. Thus, to establish a duty owed by the attorney to the nonclient the latter must allege and prove that the intent of the client to benefit the nonclient was a direct purpose of the transaction or relationship. In this regard, the test for third party recovery is whether the intent to benefit actually existed, not whether there could have been an intent to benefit the third party.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) The defendant, owing a duty of care to the plaintiff, negligently asserts a false statement; (2) The defendant intends that his statement will be acted upon by the plaintiff; (3) The defendant has knowledge that the plaintiff will probably rely on the statement, which, if erroneous, will cause loss or injury; (4) The plaintiff, justifiably, takes action in reliance on the statement; and (5) The plaintiff suffers damage proximately caused by the defendant’s negligence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[e]vidence of Mr. Blumberg’s lack of mental capacity was known and available to Mr. Leval as early as 1999, if not earlier, and was repeatedly presented to Mr. Leval and other Arent Fox lawyers through June 2009, when Arent Fox’s relationship with Mr. Blumberg and the companies was terminated.” We note that individual appellee Gerard Leval was granted a general power of attorney for Mr. Blumberg, but not until December 17, 2007. . The Court of Appeal has "classified an action for attorney malpractice as being in contract, [of which] the gravamen is the negligent breach of the contractual duty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.