48 Ohio App. 3d 296 - Palmer v. Westmeyer’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 116 Ohio App. 3d 195 - Gosden v. Louis (1996), 91 Ohio App. 3d 157 - Compuserve, Inc. v. Trionfo (1993)
106 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 Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. · Frysinger v. Leech · Union Savings Ass'n v. Home Owners Aid, Inc. · State, ex rel. Overmeyer v. Walinski · 8 Ohio App. 2d 194 - Minarik v. Nagy
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exercise the knowledge, skill, and ability ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the legal profession similarly situated, and to be ordinarily and reasonably diligent, careful, and prudent[.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'The duty of an attorney to his client is to”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellants claim that the trial court erred in holding that violations of the Disciplinary Rules do not constitute malpractice. The court’s holding is not erroneous. A complaint of misconduct by an attorney for violation of a Disciplinary Rule subjects the attorney to disciplinary action such as reprimand, suspension or disbarment from the practice of law. Jurisdiction is with the Supreme Court of Ohio. Malpractice is the breach of a duty owed with proximately resulting damages from which recovery can be had in the court which has jurisdiction. “ * * * Appellants claim that appellees violated their duty not to represent conflicting interest without full disclosure to, and permission of, the clients. A breach of this duty would not, in and of itself, constitute malpractice. There must also be damages proximately resulting from any breach.””
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.