Legal Opinion
Forti v. Ashcraft & Gerel
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 30, 2004No. 03-CV-632PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
In this action for legal malpractice, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants after the plaintiff-appellant, herself an attorney, failed to meet repeated deadlines within which to name an expert witness and file a corresponding statement pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 26(b)(4). On appeal, the plaintiff does not dispute that expert testimony was necessary to prove legal malpractice by the defendants in conducting her underlying (and unsuccessful) suit for medical malpractice. See O’Neil v. Bergan, 452 A.2d 387, 341 (D.C.1982). She argues instead that the trial court abused…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Nader v. De ToledanoDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- O'NEIL v. BerganDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Grant v. May Department Stores Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- Mills v. CooterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Abell v. Laihsing WangDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Alberts v. Tuft (In Re Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp.)District Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Lowrey v. GlassmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- Chicago Insurance Company v. Paulson & Nace, PLLCCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2015
- Young v. INTERSTATE HOTELS AND RESORTSDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- TRG Customer Solutions, Inc. v. Theodore SmithDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2020