73 Wash. 2d 393 - Cook, Flanagan & Berst v. Clausing’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably 119 Wash. 2d 251 - Hizey v. Carpenter (1992), Kurtenbach v. TeKippe (1977)
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 Hodges v. Carter · 193 Cal. App. 2d 147 - Theobald v. Byers · 52 Wash. 2d 581 - Ward v. Arnold
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that degree of care, skill, diligence and knowledge commonly possessed and exercised by a reasonable, careful and prudent lawyer in the practice of law in this jurisdiction.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“Q. Are you familiar with the standards of care for practicing divorce and domestic relations lawyers in Wyoming? A. Yes. Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether John Scorsine met or breached the standard of care for practicing domestic relations lawyers in A, the 1985-1986 modification matter, and B, the 1990-91 contempt matter? A. Yes and yes. Q. Okay. What is your opinion in both of those matters? A. Well, I — I had a client [Mr. Peterson] who hired me to increase his visitation. He ended up far worse off than if he never had gone to trial. I can only say he was well above the standard of care in both situations. I usually get much better results than that. Q. Would you agree that there are parameters in which lawyers practice and present their cases and still comply with the standard of care? A. Yes. Q. Is it your opinion that Mr. Scorsine operated within those parameters in the 1985-86 modification matter and the 1990— 91 contempt matter? A. Yes. Q. As the attorney that represented the ex-husband for both proceedings do you believe Mr. Scorsine acted prudently and in the best interest of his client in resolving both of those cases instead of proceeding to a full-blown trial in both cases? A. Prudent and vigorously especially the second proceeding. The first proceeding I think it was just a little more congenial but the second one he made — he definitely made a difference, I think. Q. Do you believe Mr. Scorsine complied with the applicable standards in resolving these cas”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Peterson v. Scorsine“[A]n attorney is not to be held liable as for malpractice because of his choosing one of two or more methods of solution of a legal problem when the choosing is the exercise of honest judgment on his part, and the method so chosen is one recognized and approved by reasonably skilled attorneys practicing in the community as a proper method in the particular case, though it might not meet with the unanimous approval of such attorneys. It is enough if the method chosen has the approval of at least a respectable minority of such attorneys who recognize it as a proper method.”
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.