Legal Opinion
Hamilton v. Needham
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 31, 1986No. 84-1634PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEADMAN, Associate Judge:
This case involves a legal malpractice claim against the partners of a law firm, Hamilton and Hamilton, 1 which in drafting a will omitted a residuary clause requested by the testatrix naming the plaintiff, Robert C. Needham, as sole residuary legatee. In a prior appeal, we established that in this jurisdiction an intended beneficiary under a will could bring a malpractice action against the drafting attorneys despite lack of privity. Needham v. Hamilton, 459 A.2d 1060 (D.C.1983). Upon remand the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Needham for the amount…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Ogle v. FuitenIllinois Supreme Court · 1984
- O'NEIL v. BerganDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Central Cab Co. v. ClarkeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1970
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Kaempe, Staffan v. Myers, GeorgeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2004
- Blair v. IngHawaii Supreme Court · 2001
- District of Columbia v. HamptonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Mieras v. DeBonaMichigan Supreme Court · 1996
- Waldman v. LevineDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.