Legal Opinion

Wright v. Williams

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 30, 1975No. Civ. 45020PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

In this appeal from a judgment on respondent’s-defendant’s motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 entered in plaintiffs’-appellants’ action for legal malpractice, appellants contend that the trial court applied an overly restricted standard of duty owed by respondent to appellants. We conclude that appellants having failed to offer expert testimony defining the standard of duty owed by respondent in the performance by him of a highly specialized legal service or that respondent failed to perform as a reasonably prudent specialist in his field, appellants’…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Smith v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Kohler v. Woollen, Brown & HawkinsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1973
  5. Ishmael v. MillingtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Rizzo v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. O'NEIL v. BerganDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Rorrer v. CookeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  4. Lentino v. Fringe Employee Plans, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
  5. Betts v. Allstate InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984

41 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