Byrd v. Bowie’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
13 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 109 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334
Relies on 558 So. 2d 869 - Tucker v. Hinds County · 481 So. 2d 247 - Shaw v. Burchfield · 656 So. 2d 790 - Palmer v. Anderson Infirmary Benevolent Ass'n · 584 So. 2d 397 - Lyle v. Mladinich · Arnold v. Garlock, Inc.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t does not require expert testimony to establish the negligence of an attorney who is ignorant of the applicable statute of limitations or who sits idly by and causes the client to lose the value of his claim for relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[c]learly established law provides that expert testimony is necessary to establish the breach of a duty of care in a claim of legal malpractice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“carved out some exceptions to the general rule that expert testimony is required in a legal malpractice claim.”
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.