Norton v. Hines’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 115 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 31 Cal. 3d 637 - In Re Marriage of Flaherty (1982), 47 Cal. 3d 863 - Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 115 state decisions — followed in 17 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 Dillon v. Legg · 56 Cal. 2d 583 - Lucas v. Hamm · 49 Cal. 2d 647 - Biakanja v. Irving · Heyer v. Flaig · 19 Cal. App. 3d 769 - Donald v. Garry
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... The attorney must have the same freedom in initiating his client's suit as the client. If he does not, lawsuits now justifiably commenced will be refused by attorneys, and the client, in most cases, will be denied his day in court. [ 49 Cal. App. 3d at 923 , 123 Cal. Rptr. at 241 ].”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lewis v. Swenson · Brody v. Ruby“" It is the attorney's reasonable and honest belief that his client has a tenable claim that is the attorney's probable cause for representation (citations), and not the attorney's conviction that his client must prevail. The attorney is not an insurer to his client's adversary that his client will win in litigation. Rather, he has a duty `to represent his client zealously ... [seeking] any lawful objective through legally permissible means .. . [and presenting] for adjudication any lawful claim, issue or defense.' (Citations omitted.) So long as the attorney does not abuse that duty by prosecuting a claim which a reasonable lawyer would not regard as tenable or by unreasonably neglecting to investigate the facts and law in making his determination to proceed, his client's adversary has no right to assert malicious prosecution against the attorney if the lawyer's efforts prove unsuccessful." (Emphasis in Norton. )”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““... the better view is that the determination of whether, in a specific case, the attorney will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injuries suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, and the policy of preventing future harm. Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 , 320 P.2d 16 (1958); (other citations omitted).” 27 Ariz.App. at 795 , 558 P.2d at 990 . 2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lewis v. Swenson · Bird v. Rothman
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.