Legal Opinion
Matson v. Weidenkopf
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided July 14, 2000No. 23262-6-IIPublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, C.J.
Paul, Rose, and Greg Matson retained attorney Jerry Weidenkopf to collect on three promissory notes executed by Vance and Julie Shafer. Weidenkopf took no action to recover on the notes, and the statute of limitations ran. The Matsons then sued Weidenkopf for legal malpractice and were awarded the full amount due on the notes, plus the interest accrued to the expiration of the statute of limitations. They were also awarded prejudgment interest.
On appeal, Weidenkopf contends that the statute of limitations did not run while he was the Matsons’ attorney because Vance Shafer acknowledged the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Kituskie v. CorbmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Hansen v. RothausWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- Peters v. SimmonsWashington Supreme Court · 1976
- Gevaart v. Metco Construction, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1988
- French v. GabrielWashington Supreme Court · 1991
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Visvardis v. Eric P. Ferleger, P.C.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2007
- Architechtonics Construction Management, Inc. v. KhorramCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- Janicki Logging & Construction Co. v. Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Janicki Log. v. Schwabe, Williamson & WyattCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Group, LLCWashington Supreme Court · 2014
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.