Smith v. Lewis
California Supreme Court
1Dissent
CLARK, J.—I dissent.
The evidence is insufficient to prove plaintiff lost $100,000 from her lawyer’s negligence in 1967. There is no direct evidence a well informed lawyer would have obtained an award of the husband’s pensions in the wife’s divorce, nor does the record provide such inference. Rather, the *366state of the law and the circumstances of the parties reveal lawyer Lewis reached a reasonable result for his client in 1967.
To establish liability for negligence, a plaintiff must show defendant’s negligence contributed to injury so that “but for” the negligence the injury would not have been…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Wissner v. WissnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- In Re Marriage of FithianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- French v. FrenchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Phillipson v. Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.