Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nemec v. Deering

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1984No. 14389Published

1DissentWollman, Justice

I would affirm the summary judgment entered on behalf of defendant.

At the outset, it should be kept in mind that in an action against an attorney for negligence or violation of duty, the client has the burden of establishing that the attorney was negligent and that but for that negligence the client would have obtained a favorable judgment in the original action. Taylor Oil Co. v. Weisensee, 334 N.W.2d 27 (S.D.1983). See also Harding v. Bell, 265 Or. 202, 508 P.2d 216 (1973) and Lewandowski v. Continental Cas. Co., 88 Wis.2d 271, 276 N.W.2d 284 (1979), and authorities cited therein. The…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Harding v. BellOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Lewandowski v. Continental Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Plank v. HeirigsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Taylor Oil Co. v. WeisenseeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Bentz v. Cimarron Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1962

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API