Harline v. Barker’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Orvis v. Johnson (2008), Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 59 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 727
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Granito v. United States · Granito v. United States · State v. Pena · Boroff v. Tully
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'In a legal malpractice action, a plaintiff must plead and prove (i) an attorney-client relationship; (i) a duty of the attorney to the client arising from their relationship; (Hi) a breach of that duty; (iv) a causal connection between the breach of duty and the resulting injury to the client; and (v) actual damages'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[tlhe objective is to establish what the result [of the underlying litigation] should have been (an objective standard), not what a particular judge or jury would have decided (a subjective standard).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Harline seeks to have a jury determine what only a bankruptcy judge could have determined in the first instance. We see no reason why a malpractice plaintiff should be able to bootstrap his way into having a lay jury decide the merits of the underlying ‘suit within a suit’ when, by statute or other rule of law, only an expert judge could have made the underlying decision. It is illogical, in effect, to make a change in the law’s allocation of responsibility between judge and jury in the underlying action when that action is revisited in legal malpractice actions and thereby distort the ‘suit within a suit’ analytic model. See 2 Mallen & Smith, supra, § 27.23, at 693 n. 5. To so proceed ignores and, in some eases, contradicts the public policy goals which prompted the initial assignment of decision-making authority respectively to judges and to juries on specific issues. There is no basis for abrogating those public policy goals simply because the matter arises in a legal malpractice context.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bloustine v. Fagin · Marrs v. Kelly
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.