Jackson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997), 27 Cal. App. 4th 1611 - Schultz v. Harney (1994)
3 federal appellate · 32 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 Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip · 3 Cal. 2d 427 - Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co. · 2 Cal. 3d 557 - Denham v. Superior Court · Mississippi v. Turner · 6 Cal. 3d 195 - Budd v. Nixen
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The elements of a cause of action in tort for professional negligence are: (1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence. [Citations.]'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the allegedly negligent conduct does not cause damage, it generates no cause of action in tort. [Citation.] The mere breach of a professional duty, causing only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat of future harm not yet realized does not suffice to create a cause of action for negligence. [Citations.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. Wraxall
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.