Levine v. Wiss & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc. (1992), Ziegelheim v. Apollo (1992)
6 district · 37 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
Relies on Southland Corp. v. Keating · Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. · Rodriguez v. United States · Pargoud v. United States · Kelly v. Gwinnell
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]ne who undertakes to render services in the practice of a profession or trade is required to exercise the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that profession in good standing in similar communities.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether an accountant, selected by the litigants in a contested matrimonial case and appointed by the court to act as an "impartial expert" in rendering a binding valuation of a business asset for purposes of equitable distribution, should be held liable for negligence in deviating from accepted standards applicable to the accounting profession.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“elevated them beyond the status of accountants to the quasi-judicial role of `arbitrators,' who would generally be shielded from private actions for damages brought by the parties to a given dispute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.