R.D.H. Communications, Ltd. v. Winston

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “the exhaustion of appeals rule manipulates the concept of legal injury”
• applying rule in part because client-plaintiff had not “hire[d] a new attorney” and “stay[ed] the course with” attorney-defendant
• applying rule in part because client-plaintiff had not \hire[d] a new attorney\ and \stay[ed] the course with\ attorney-defendant
• “[a client’s] decision to stay the course with [his attorney] is not one this court should second-guess in relation to the statute of limitations issue”
• “The rule’s primary purpose is to avoid placing a client in the untenable position of suing his attorney while the latter continues to represent him.”
• “The court in Winston also set an outer bound on the duration of the ‘specific dispute’—it does not include appeals.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Beard v. Edmondson and Gallagher
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2002-01-24· cited 53×
• Wagner v. Sellinger
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2004-04-29· cited 37×
• Ray v. Queen
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2000-03-16· cited 36×
• Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2012-01-06· cited 34×
• Hiligh v. Sands
  D.C. Circuit· 2019-06-10· cited 30×
• Biomet, Inc. v. Barnes & Thornburg
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2003-07-08· cited 27×
• Hillbroom v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2011-04-07· cited 26×
• Jung, Bow G. v. Mundy Holt Mance PC
  D.C. Circuit· 2004-06-25· cited 22×
• Bradley v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers Dispute Resolution
  D.C. Circuit· 2005-12-30· cited 22×
• Seed Co. v. Westerman Ex Rel. Estate of Westerman
  D.C. Circuit· 2016-08-12· cited 22×
• Beach TV Props., Inc. v. Solomon
  D.C. Circuit· 2018-03-29· cited 21×
• De May v. Moore & Bruce, LLP
  District of Columbia· 2008-11-06· cited 20×
• Jones v. Lattimer
  District of Columbia· 2014-03-06· cited 15×
• In re AK. V.
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2000-03-23· cited 15×
• Bleck v. Power
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2008-09-04· cited 14×
• Anderson v. George
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1998-09-10· cited 13×
• Rocha v. Brown & Gould, LLP
  District of Columbia· 2015-04-30· cited 13×
• Taylor v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2004-09-16· cited 10×
• Patteson v. Astrazeneca, LP
  District of Columbia· 2012-07-09· cited 7×
• Frederick Road Ltd. Partnership v. Brown & Sturm
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1998-01-08· cited 5×