Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Housel & Housel

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1998No. 96-313PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMAS, Justice.

The only issue to be resolved in this ease is whether the trial court ruled correctly when it granted a summary judgment to Housel & Housel, Jerry W. Housel and John 0. Housel (the Housels), on the premise that the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice had run at the time the action was filed. In ruling against Delphine Badura Murphy and Elmarie Denney, the successor co-personal representatives of the Estate of Dominie G. Badura (the personal representative), the trial court concluded that there was no genuine issue of fact as to when a successor attorney became…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Haller v. WallisWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Duke v. HousenWyoming Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Reno Livestock Corp. v. Sun Oil Co.(Delaware)Wyoming Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Mills v. GarlowWyoming Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Nowotny v. L & B Contract Industries, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Amoco Production Co. v. EM Nominee Partnership Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Dan Nelson Construction, Inc. v. Nodland & DicksonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Adelizzi v. StrattonWyoming Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Robert L. Kroenlein Trust ex rel. Alden v. KirchheferWyoming Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Ballinger v. ThompsonWyoming Supreme Court · 2005

12 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