O'NEIL v. Bergan’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 27 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Kaempe v. Myers (2004), 938 F. Supp. 46 - Williams v. Callaghan (1996)
17 federal appellate · 27 district · 41 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 International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · Ryan v. United States · 56 Cal. 2d 583 - Lucas v. Hamm · Hull v. Celanese Corp. · 258 Cal. App. 2d 136 - Lysick v. Walcom
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff must present expert testimony establishing the standard of care unless the attorney's lack of care and skill is so obvious that the trier of fact can find negligence as a matter of common knowledge,”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“allowing the statute of limitations to run on a client’s claim; permitting entry of default judgment against the client; failing to instruct the client to answer interrogatories; failing to allege affirmative defenses; failing to file tax returns; failing to follow the client’s explicit instructions; and billing a client for time not spent providing services.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The elements of an action for professional negligence are the same as those of an ordinary negligence action. “The plaintiff bears the burden of presenting evidence “which establishes the applicable standard of care, demonstrates that this standard has been violated, and develops a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of.’ ” Morrison v. Mac-Namara, D.C.App., 407 A.2d 555, 560 (1979) (citations omitted). A uniform standard of care applies in actions for negligence: reasonable care under the circumstances. Morgan v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 449 A.2d 1102, 1108-09 (1982). Inherent in such reasonable care, however, is the requirement “that those with special training and experience adhere to a standard of conduct commensurate with such attributes.” Morrison, supra at 560 . Thus, “a lawyer must exercise that degree of reasonable care and skill expected of lawyers acting under similar circumstances.” Id. at 561 .[ 2 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Battle v. Thornton
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.