Grausz v. Englander’s Empirical Analysis
321 F.3d 467 · 2003
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Gunnells v. Healthplan Services, Inc. (2003), Anne Arundel County Board of Education v. Norville (2005)
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 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
Relies on Southmark Corporation Southmark Corporation v. Coopers & Lybrand · Varat Enterprises Inc First Union Commercial Corporation v. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough · Willemain v. Kivitz · Harnett v. Billman · Keith v. Aldridge
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions ... or the same core of operative facts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“one who has a pecuniary interest in the distribution of [the debtor's] assets to creditors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Both actions relate to the nature and quality of legal services the Linowes firm provided to Grausz in connection with the bankruptcy proceeding. See In re Iannochino, 242 F.3d 36, 47 (1st Cir. 2001); In re Intelogic Trace, Inc., 200 F.3d 382, 387 (5th Cir.2000) (noting that the “central transaction” involved in the fee application and malpractice claim was the provision of professional services). The fee application proceeding necessarily included an inquiry by the bankruptcy court into the quality of professional services rendered by the Li-nowes firm. The court was required to “consider the nature, the extent, and the value of such services” before awarding fees. 11 U.S.C. § 330 (a)(3). See also Ian-nochino, 242 F.3d at 47 ; Intelogic, 200 F.3d at 387 . By granting the Linowes firm’s second and final fee application, the bankruptcy court impliedly found that the firm’s services were acceptable throughout its representation of Grausz. ... Grausz’s malpractice claim, which alleges that the firm was negligent in advising him about disclosure requirements, addresses this very same work. We conclude, therefore, that the fee applications and Grausz’s legal malpractice claim arise out of the same “core of operative facts.” The malpractice claim is rooted in the same cause of action as the earlier claim for fees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.