Legal Opinion

Pizel v. Zuspann

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 20, 1990No. 63,261PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ALLEGRUCCI, J.:

This is a legal malpractice action against the defendants, attorneys Eugene P. Zuspann and B.E. Whalen. In our original opinion, we reversed the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Zuspann and granted a new trial. Pizel v. Zuspann, 247 Kan. 54, 795 P.2d 42 (1990). On August 1, 1990, defendants Zuspann and Whalen filed a motion for rehearing and clarification pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.06 (1990 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 37).

The defendants’ motion addresses the italicized portion of the following language in Pizel v. Zuspann,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pizel v. ZuspannSupreme Court of Kansas · 1990
  2. Bartlett v. Davis CorporationSupreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  3. Wichita Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. BlackSupreme Court of Kansas · 1989
  4. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. HuffSupreme Court of Kansas · 1985

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Blair v. IngHawaii Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State Ex Rel. Stovall v. Reliance InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 2005
  3. Bauman v. DayAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Gragg v. Wichita State UniversitySupreme Court of Kansas · 1997
  5. Dearborn Animal Clinic, P.A. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1991

27 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