Legal Opinion

Sharts v. Natelson

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1994No. 21404PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MONTGOMERY, Justice.

The issue in this case, as framed by our Court of Appeals in one of its opinions below, Sharts v. Natelson, 118 N.M. 330, 881 P.2d 690 (Ct.App.1993), is: “[W]hen may a trial court rule, as a matter of law, that harm or loss in fact exists sufficient for a cause of action in legal malpractice to accrue and begin the running of the four year limitation period provided by [NMSA 1978,] Sections 37-1-1 and -4 [ (Repl.Pamp.1990) ]”? Id at 341, 881 P.2d at 700. The trial court answered this question by holding that, on the materials presented in connection with Defendants’…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Laird v. BlackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Stevens v. LakeMississippi Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Grunwald v. BronkeshSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1993

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Sonja Lujan, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kimberly Lujan, Deceased v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
  2. New Mexico Public Schools Insurance Authority v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  4. Encinias v. Whitener Law Firm, P.A.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Potter v. PierceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2015

28 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