Legal Opinion
Roberts v. Chimileski
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided February 7, 2003No. 01-158PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
¶ 1. This appeal involves legal malpractice claims arising out of the formulation of a development scheme that sought to circumvent Act 250 permit requirements. Plaintiffs Marcel Roberts and David Currier appeal a superior court decision upholding the findings of a special master denying recovery for legal malpractice against defendants Robert Chimileski, William Davies, Robert Davis, Gregory Howe, Michael Loignon, John Monette, and Andrew Pepin. Plaintiffs contend that (1) the special master should not have heard expert testimony to establish the standard of care of a Vermont attorney with…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Conklin v. WeismanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
- Estate of Fleming v. NicholsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1998
- First Nat. Bank of Clovis v. Diane, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1985
- LaFaso v. LaFasoSupreme Court of Vermont · 1966
- Brown v. KellySupreme Court of Vermont · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- EBWS, LLC v. Britly Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2007
- Bloomer v. GibsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2006
- Clary v. Lite MacHines Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2006
- State v. TherrienSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
- In re KirbySupreme Court of Vermont · 2012
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.