Wright v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Rorrer v. Cooke (1985), Lentino v. Fringe Employee Plans, Inc. (1979)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 14 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 56 Cal. 2d 583 - Lucas v. Hamm · 6 Cal. 3d 176 - Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand · 13 Cal. 3d 349 - Smith v. Lewis · 15 Ill. App. 3d 455 - Kohler v. Woollen, Brown & Hawkins · 241 Cal. App. 2d 520 - Ishmael v. Millington
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Ajttorney malpractice is to be determined by the rules that apply to professional negligence generally, subject to the necessary qualification that the court must determine legal questions which un-derly [sic] the ultimate decision. There are cases involving the question of attorney malpractice where reasonable minds cannot differ on the ultimate result that the conduct does or does not satisfy the duty of care. In those, the question is treated as one of law and not of fact, as it is in any negligence action.... There are cases where regardless of the attorney’s negligence his advice or action was correct because of a governing legal principle so that the negligence does not proximately cause harm.... Except in those situations, the issue is one of fact.” [Citations and footnote omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“California law holds that expert testimony is admissible to establish the standard of care applicable to a lawyer in the performance of an engagement and whether he has performed to the standard[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Novoa
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.