Miller v. Mooney’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 12 district · 101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc. (2005), Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. (2009)
5 federal appellate · 12 district · 101 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 Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. · Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · Robertson v. Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett · Krawczyk v. Stingle · Rae v. Air-Speed, Inc.
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Unless otherwise agreed between promisor and promisee, a beneficiary of a promise is an intended beneficiaiy if recognition of a right to performance in the beneficiaiy is appropriate to effectuate the intention of the parties and either 1. The performance of the promise will satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money to the beneficiaiy; or 2. The circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiaiy the benefit of the promised performance. (2) An incidental beneficiaiy is a beneficiaiy who is not an intended beneficiary.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An attorney-client relationship may be implied 'when (1) a person seeks advice or assistance from an attorney, (2) the advice or assistance sought pertains to matters within the attorney's professional competence, and (3) the attorney expressly or impliedly agrees to give or actually gives the desired advice or assistance.... In appropriate cases the third element may be established by proof of detrimental reliance, when the person seeking legal services reasonably relies on the attorney to provide them and the attorney, aware of such reliance, does nothing to negate it.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A client who engages an attorney to prepare a will may seem set on a particular plan for the distribution of her estate, as here. It is not uncommon, however, for a client to have a change of heart after reviewing a draft will. Confronting a last will and testament can produce complex psychological demands on a client that may require considerable periods of reflection. An attorney frequently prepares multiple drafts of a will before the client is reconciled to the result.”
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.