Foxen v. Carpenter’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 2 Cal. 4th 962 - Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital District · 31 Cal. 4th 1074 - Schifando v. City of Los Angeles · 16 Cal. 4th 469 - Garcia v. McCutchen · Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. · 36 Cal. 4th 1075 - Reynolds v. Bement
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[a]n action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services' " because it was more specific than that set forth in section 17208. ( Foxen , at p. 296 .) As the court explained, "[w]ith section 340.6(a), 'the Legislature intended to establish a limitations period that would apply broadly to any claim concerning an attorney's violation of his or her professional obligations in the course of providing professional services regardless of how those claims were styled in the plaintiff's complaint. ' [Citation.] Section 340.6(a) was enacted 'to eliminate the former limitations scheme's dependence on the way a plaintiff styled his or her complaint.' [Citation.].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'[a]n action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services'”
1 later decision 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.