Legal Opinion
Viner v. Sweet
California Supreme Court
Decided June 23, 2003No. S101964PublishedCited by 131 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KENNARD, J.
In a client’s action against an attorney for legal malpractice, the client must prove, among other things, that the attorney’s negligent acts or omissions caused the client to suffer some financial harm or loss. When the alleged malpractice occurred in the performance of transactional work (giving advice or preparing documents for a business transaction), must the client prove this causation element according to the “but for” test, meaning that the harm or loss would not have occurred without the attorney’s malpractice? The answer is yes.
I
In 1984, plaintiffs Michael Viner…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
- Mitchell v. GonzalesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Ortega v. Kmart Corp.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by131 opinions
- Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLPCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- State Department of State Hospitals v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
- Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. William C.California Supreme Court · 2012
126 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.