Legal Opinion
Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 22, 2004No. A102513PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
POLLAK, J.
Plaintiff seeks to impose liability on attorneys who produced a class action recovery of some $90 million, claiming they were negligent because they failed to obtain a still larger recovery. While we may share the attorneys’ dismay that their efforts have been rewarded with this lawsuit rather than with the kudos they no doubt expected, and perhaps deserve, we are nonetheless constrained to hold that plaintiff’s claim cannot be rejected out of hand. While it may well be that the attorneys did not breach their duty of care in failing to proceed under an alternative theory that…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Hansberry v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- City of San Jose v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- 29 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1473, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,064 the Officers for Justice, and Jesse J. Byrd v. The Civil Service Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, United States of America v. The City and County of San FranciscoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Clary v. Lite MacHines Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2006
- Dignity Health v. Seare (In re Seare)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nevada · 2013
- Rotolo v. San Jose Sports & Entertainment, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Martorana v. Marlin & SaltzmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.