Barcelo v. Elliott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 55 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The requirement of attorney-client privity to maintain a malpractice action 'ensure[s] that attorneys may in all cases zealously represent their clients without the threat of suit from third parties compromising that representation.'”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thorsen v. Richmond Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals · Guest v. Cochran

2. “"At common law, an attorney owes a duty of care only to his or her client, not to third parties who may have been damaged by the attorney's negligent representation of the client. Without this `privity barrier,' the rationale goes, clients would lose control over the attorney-client relationship, and attorneys would be subject to almost unlimited liability. Texas courts of appeals have uniformly applied the privity barrier in the estate planning context. "Plaintiffs argue, however, that recognizing a limited exception to the privity *Page 637 barrier as to lawyers who negligently draft a will or trust would not thwart the rule's underlying rationales. They contend that the attorney should owe a duty of care to persons who were specific, intended beneficiaries of the estate plan. We disagree. "The majority of other states addressing this issue have relaxed the privity barrier in the estate planning context. "While some of these states have allowed a broad cause of action by those claiming to be intended beneficiaries, others have limited the class of plaintiffs to beneficiaries specifically identified in an invalid will or trust. The Supreme Court of Iowa, for example, held that "`a cause of action ordinarily will arise only when as a direct result of the lawyer's professional negligence the testator's intent as expressed in the testamentary instruments is frustrated in whole or in part and the beneficiary's interest in the estate is either lost, diminished, or unrealized.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. F.E. Appling Interests v. McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler · 842 So. 2d 631 - Robinson v. Benton

3. “In most cases where a defect renders a will or trust invalid, however, there are concomitant questions as to the true intentions of the testator. Suppose, for example, that a properly drafted will is simply not executed at the time of the testator's death. The document may express the testator's true intentions, lacking signatures solely because of the attorney's negligent delay. On the other hand, the testator may have postponed execution because of second thoughts regarding the distribution scheme. In the latter situation, the attorney's representation of the testator will likely be affected if he or she knows that the existence of an unexecuted will may create malpractice liability if the testator unexpectedly dies.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thorsen v. Richmond Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals