303 Pa. Super. 559 - Pashak v. Barish’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably 335 Pa. Super. 599 - Mariscotti v. Tinari (1984), 1999 Pa. Super. 241 - Adamski v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1999)
2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 902 · 33 U.S.C. § 908
Relies on 6 Cal. 3d 195 - Budd v. Nixen · Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz · Thompson v. Lawson · 266 Pa. Super. 396 - Schenkel v. Monheit · 275 Pa. Super. 65 - Duke & Co. v. Anderson
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Clearly, when it is alleged that an attorney has breached his professional obligations to his client, an essential element of the cause of action, whether the action be denominated in assumpsit or trespass, is proof of actual loss. Duke & Co. v. Anderson, 275 Pa. Super. 65, 73-74 , 418 A.2d 613, 617 (1980). The mere breach of a professional duty, causing only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat of future harm — not yet realized — does not suffice to create a cause of action for negligence. . . . Schenkel v. Monheit, supra, 266 Pa. Super. [396] at 399, 405 A.2d [493] at 494 [(1979)] (quoting Budd v. Nixen, 6 Cal.3d 195, 200 , 491 P.2d 433, 436 , 98 Cal. Rptr. 849, 852 (1971)). The test of whether damages are remote or speculative has nothing to do with the difficulty in calculating the amount, but deals with the more basic question of whether there are identifiable damages.... Thus, damages are speculative only if the uncertainty concerns the fact of damages rather than the amount. Pashak v. Barish, 303 Pa. Super. 559, 561-62 , 450 A.2d 67, 69 (1982) (quoting R. Mallen and V. Levitt, supra, [Legal Malpractice] §302, at 353-54 (2d ed. 1981)).” Id. at 504-505, 555 A.2d at 68 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The test of whether damages [in a legal malpractice action] are remote or speculative has nothing to do with the difficulty in calculating the amount, but deals with the more basic question of whether there are identifiable damages. The mere possibility or even probability that the plaintiff will sustain an injury at some future time does not alter the speculative nature of the damage claim or support a cause of action for legal malpractice. * * * Thus, damages are speculative only if the uncertainty concerns the fact of damages rather than the amount.”
1 later decision 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.