Legal Opinion

Sola v. Clostermann

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 16, 1984No. A8101-00202; CA A25060PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

In this legal malpractice claim, the amended complaint alleges that defendants, attorneys at law, were negligent when they represented plaintiffs in a previous lawsuit by failing to file a timely notice of appeal. As in all legal malpractice cases, we are involved with a lawsuit within a lawsuit. To prevail on the present claim, plaintiffs must show that they would have won on the appeal of the previous case, which is a question of law. Thus, we are in substantially the same position we would have been in reviewing the judgment in the first case had defendants filed a timely appeal for…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Chocktoot v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Harding v. BellOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  3. In re the Accounting of the Bank of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  4. Haskell v. Wilmington Trust CompanySupreme Court of Delaware · 1973
  5. Bock v. ZittenfieldCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Helmbrecht v. St. Paul InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Millhouse v. WiesenthalTexas Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Floyd v. KoskoCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1985
  4. Hoekstre v. Golden B. Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  5. Harris v. KisslingCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

5 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