Singleton v. Stegall’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably 612 So. 2d 359 - Century 21 Deep South Prop., Ltd. v. Corson (1992), Hopper v. Frank (1994)
1 federal appellate · 28 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 Stanton & Associates v. Bryant Const. Co. · Triggs v. State · Grantham v. Dept. of Corrections · Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi, Inc. v. Maas · 448 So. 2d 271 - Ferguson v. Watkins
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) the duty of care; (b) a duty of loyalty; and (c) duties provided by contract.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) A person manifests to a lawyer the person’s intent that the lawyer provide legal services for the person; and (2)(a) The lawyer manifests to the person consent to do so, or (b) fails to manifest lack of consent to do so, knowing that the person reasonably relies on the lawyer to provide the services, or (c) a tribunal with power to do so appoints the lawyer to provide the services.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“... For the moment it is important that we keep well in mind that, in describing the scope of the Mississippi Rules, we have ordered: Violation of a Rule should not give rise to a cause of action nor should it create any presumption that a duty has been breached. The Rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability. Furthermore, the purpose of the Rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons. The fact that a Rule is just basis for a lawyer's self-assessment, or for sanctioning a lawyer under the administration of a disciplinary authority, does not imply that an antagonist in a collateral proceeding or transaction has standing to seek enforcement of the Rules. Accordingly, nothing in the rules should be deemed to augment any substantive legal duties of lawyers or the extra-disciplinary consequences of violating such a duty.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.