Paul v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 36 state decisions

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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As a general rule, a plaintiff cannot prevail in a malpractice action in Connecticut unless he presents expert testimony to establish the standard of proper professional skill or care.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richardson v. Williams, Polan Pattis, No. Cv99-0426094 (Mar. 22, 2002) · Blumenkopf v. East, No. Cv 98 0116503 (Jun. 28, 2002)

2. “[W]here there is such an obvious and gross want of care and skill that the neglect is clear even to a lay person.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Blumenkopf v. East, No. Cv 98 0116503 (Jun. 28, 2002) · 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 1081 - Dubreuil v. Witt, No. 539287 (Jan. 22, 2003)

3. “no expert testimony is required to establish legal malpractice in a situation where an action has been brought against a party and judgment by default is rendered against that party in the case because his attorney has allegedly done absolutely nothing to protect him. The defendant's alleged failure to take any action whatsoever to protect the interests of the plaintiffs is conduct that involves such an obvious and gross want of care and skill that the neglect would be clear even to a layperson.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 188 Conn. App. 292 - Deroy v. Reck