Legal Opinion
Rosby Corp. v. Townsend, Yosha, Cline & Price
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided December 23, 2003No. 49A05-0302-CV-68PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
VAIDIK, Judge.
Case Summary 1
In this case, we are called upon to determine whether Picadilly, Inc. v. Raikos, 582 N.E.2d 338 (Ind.1991), bars the assignment of all legal malpractice claims or only those claims where assignment would be to an adversary in the underlying action. Because we determine that Picadilly bars the assignment of all legal malpractice claims in order to protect the unique nature of the client-attorney relationship, we conclude that the legal malpractice assignment in this case is void as against public policy. 2
Facts and Procedural History
In 1985, Monon Corporation…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- Picadilly, Inc. v. RaikosIndiana Supreme Court · 1991
- Loomis v. Ameritech Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2002
- Coffey Ex Rel. Collins v. Jefferson County Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1988
- Luhnow v. HornIndiana Court of Appeals · 2001
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Godby v. WhiteheadIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005
- Gurski v. Rosenblum and Filan, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2005
- Midwest Psychological Center, Inc. v. Indiana Department of AdministrationIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011
- McGrath v. Everest National InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2010
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.