Edwards v. Kaye’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Murphy , the Supreme Court was only required to hold that Hughes was inapplicable to accountant malpractice claims, based on the issue and facts there presented including the differentiated professional duties. Therefore, the court's explanation and addition to their Hughes holding, requiring a claimant to be placed in a position that would force him to fire his counsel and hire new, was, in our view, dictum. We will even assume this dictum was judicial dictum because it came from our highest court. However, as we have already shown, the Murphy court did not note that the Hughes' attorney had withdrawn from representation, and thus the Hugheses were not then forced into the position requiring them to obtain new counsel. See Hughes, 821 S.W.2d at 156 . Because the Murphy court's modification of the Hughes test, if applied to the facts of Hughes , would result in an opposite result in Hughes , we find the dictum to be inapplicable and not binding on our facts.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eiland v. Turpin, Smith, Dyer, Saxe & McDonald · Eiland v. Turpin

2. “The Murphy court, however, apparently failed to acknowledge the actual circumstances in Hughes . In Hughes , as in our case, the attorney withdrew as the Hugheses' attorney over two years before the Hugheses filed their attorney malpractice claim. Hughes, 821 S.W.2d at 156 . Therefore, if we add the fourth prong [the forced to obtain new counsel prong] that the Murphy court asserts was the basis of their holding in Hughes to the facts of Hughes , the Hugheses' claim itself would have been barred because the statute of limitations would have run prior to the filing of their attorney malpractice claim.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eiland v. Turpin, Smith, Dyer, Saxe & McDonald · Eiland v. Turpin

3. “'at least persuasive and should be followed unless found to be erroneous.’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. PR Investments & Specialty Retailers, Inc. · Zapata County Appraisal District v. Coastal Oil & Gas Corp.