Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 883 SW2D 947 - Baldridge v. Lacks

Baldridge v. Lacks’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
5
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

1 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2018

1 district · 20 state decisions

90199420002010decided

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 Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick · State Ex Rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf · State Ex Rel. Great American Insurance Co. v. Smith · Missouri Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · Fisher v. McIlroy

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

  1. “"Defendants ask this court to adopt the Pennsylvania view as set forth in Muhammad . The language in that case, however, goes well beyond the proposition that settled cases should not be readily revisited. In essence, defendants ask us to grant attorneys immunity from civil liability in cases where their clients have settled, absent some affirmative misrepresentation or fraud by the attorney. We do not believe it would serve the interests of justice to do so. Accordingly, we refuse to adopt a `bright line' rule that protects attorneys from liability where a plaintiff has made a submissible case of negligence."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Throughout their argument, defendants mischaracterize plaintiff’s malpractice claim as an attempt to attack the reasonableness of the settlement. Plaintiff’s claim, however, is that defendants failed to provide competent legal advice to her during the prosecution of her divorce action. She is suing to recover for economic loss alleg-edlg sustained as a result. The issues in the present action are whether defendants were negligent in their representation of plaintiff and whether plaintiff was damaged as a result. Plaintiff claims defendants negligently advised her to enter into the separation agreement without first having fully and adequately assessed the nature and extent of the marital estate. These specific issues were not adjudicated at the settlement hearing in the dissolution proceeding, [footnote omitted] Therefore, defendants’ argument of collateral estoppel does not satisfy the threshold requirement that the issues be identical.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that defendants failed to plead or prove a claim upon which relief could be granted or a defense to plaintiffs claim; that the Court erred in denying plaintiffs motion for directed verdict; that the defense had, over objection, converted the proof from the legal issues raised by the pleadings into “alleged” equitable issues, and that the verdict of the jury on such equitable issues was not binding on the court. The motion contained many other allegations, with some concerning defendants’ main instructions; these included one that those instructions submitted issues not pleaded “nor proven.””
    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.