In addition to the Doe opinion, blogged below, the Supreme Court has issued nine opinions in civil cases in the last two days. I don't follow developments in civil law and I haven't read them all. (Actually, I haven't read any.) I did, however, note one case of self-interest to attorneys. In City of McCall v. Buxton, et. al., the Court, per Chief Justice Eismann, found that the statute of limitations on two legal malpractice claims, based upon negligent advice to a client, did not being to run until there was an adverse jury verdict in the case where the malpractice allegedly occurred. You can view the opinion at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/mccall34609.pdf.Thursday, January 22, 2009
Lots of Civil Cases
In addition to the Doe opinion, blogged below, the Supreme Court has issued nine opinions in civil cases in the last two days. I don't follow developments in civil law and I haven't read them all. (Actually, I haven't read any.) I did, however, note one case of self-interest to attorneys. In City of McCall v. Buxton, et. al., the Court, per Chief Justice Eismann, found that the statute of limitations on two legal malpractice claims, based upon negligent advice to a client, did not being to run until there was an adverse jury verdict in the case where the malpractice allegedly occurred. You can view the opinion at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/mccall34609.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment