Lynch v. Republic Publishing Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that expert testimony is often required to determine whether attorney breached their duty of care because the law is “highly technical”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. O'CONNELL
  Washington Supreme Court· 1974-06-13· cited 97×
• Walker v. Bangs
  Washington Supreme Court· 1979-11-01· cited 84×
• Cantrill v. American Mail Line, Ltd.
  Washington Supreme Court· 1953-05-08· cited 72×
• Siragusa v. Swedish Hospital
  Washington Supreme Court· 1962-08-02· cited 43×
• Fisher v. Larsen
  California Court of Appeal· 1982-12-24· cited 34×
• Geer v. Tonnon
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2007-04-09· cited 33×
• Lyster v. Metzger
  Washington Supreme Court· 1966-03-17· cited 31×
• Sevener v. Northwest Tractor & Equipment Corp.
  Washington Supreme Court· 1952-08-07· cited 23×
• Gough v. Tribune-Journal Company
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1954-10-20· cited 20×
• Rhine v. Haley
  Supreme Court of Arkansas· 1964-05-04· cited 14×
• State v. Madry
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1974-12-02· cited 12×
• State v. Moosbrugger
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1962-06-08· cited 10×
• Kenna v. Griffin
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1971-03-01· cited 9×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Betts v. Brady
  Supreme Court· 1942-06-01· cited 1,154×
• Patrick v. Smith
  Washington Supreme Court· 1913-09-15· cited 41×
• Thorne v. Callahan
  Washington Supreme Court· 1951-08-02· cited 36×
• Johnson v. Caughren
  Washington Supreme Court· 1909-10-04· cited 26×
• Field v. Colson
  Court of Appeals of Kentucky· 1892-10-01· cited 8×
• Taylor v. Moseley
  Court of Appeals of Kentucky· 1916-06-06· cited 8×
• Davis v. Hamilton
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1902-12-12· cited 4×