Legal Opinion
Hinton v. Rudasill
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided June 30, 2010No. 09-7071PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGMENT
2Per curiam
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 12, 2009, 624 F.Supp.2d 48, dismissing the complaint be affirmed. “Under District of Columbia law, to prevail on a claim of legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish the applicable standard of care, a breach of that standard, and a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of.” Biomet Inc. v.…
3Cases cited8 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Polk County v. DodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Kotsch v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLPDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by12 opinions
- Johnson v. SullivanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Harvey v. MohammedDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLCDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Jordan v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Iacangelo v. Georgetown UniversityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.