Legal Opinion

Heinze v. Bauer

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 2008No. 33579PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HORTON, Justice.

This is a legal malpractice action. Appellant Timothy Heinze appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Charles Bauer dismissing Heinze’s complaint. This Court is asked to decide whether Heinze is judicially es-topped from pursuing a claim that Bauer negligently recommended Heinze accept the terms of a divorce settlement after Heinze stipulated to the settlement, under oath, in court. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Heinze retained Bauer, an attorney, to represent him in his divorce. The divorce action presented two main…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. New Hampshire v. MaineSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Lawrence Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation David's Restaurant SupplyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  4. Harriet Rissetto v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 343, a Business Entity, Form Unknown, Michael Beavers and Does 1-25, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  5. Reese v. DanforthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Silicon International Ore, LLC v. Monsanto Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Kathleen A. McCallister v. Gordon Dixon, MDIdaho Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Rita Hoagland v. Ada CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Campbell v. KvammeIdaho Supreme Court · 2013
  5. State v. Jamie Lee NelsonIdaho Supreme Court · 2017

19 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