Legal Opinion

Hipple v. McFadden

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 28, 2011No. 39802-8-IIPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Casey, J.*

¶1 — Carolyn Elsey and Deborah McFadden, two attorneys with the Pierce County Department of Assigned Counsel (DAC), appeal the trial court’s denial of their CR 12(b)(6) motion, arguing that the statute of limitations on Robert Hippie’s attorney malpractice action has expired. They claim that the trial court erred in finding that the statute of limitations tolled under the “continuous representation” rule. They also argue that Hippie failed to allege facts sufficient to show proximate cause. We granted discretionary review to determine the proper application of the continuous…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Shumsky v. EisensteinNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  3. Burton v. LehmanWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Daugert v. PappasWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  5. In Re the Personal Restraint of KingWashington Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Clark County Fire District No. 5 v. Bullivant Houser Bailey PCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  2. Beach TV Props., Inc. v. SolomonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
  3. In re the Suspension of JosephSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2012
  4. HIPPLE v. McFaddenCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  5. Affiliated FM Insurance v. LTK Consulting Services, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2014

6 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