Legal Opinion
Shoemake v. Ferrer
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided April 7, 2008No. 60158-0-IPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 —Andrea and Keith Shoemake appeal both the damage award and the attorney fee award in their *821successful legal malpractice action against attorney Douglas Ferrer. The Shoemakes contend that the trial court erred as a matter of law in calculating their damage award because it credited Ferrer with his contingent fee, even though the Shoemakes had to pay another attorney a separate contingent fee in order to remedy the results of Ferrer’s negligence. The Shoemakes also contend that the trial court awarded them insufficient attorney fees. Ferrer cross-appeals, contending that the trial court…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
- Ralph W. Moores, Jr. v. Nathan Greenberg, Ralph W. Moores, Jr. v. Nathan GreenbergCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
- Campagnola v. MulhollandNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- Eriks v. DenverWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Christy v. SalitermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pamela Sue Hook v. Tito Trevino, Individually, and Tito Trevino D/B/A Trevino Law OfficesSupreme Court of Iowa · 2013
- Schmidt v. CooganWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- Shoemake v. FerrerWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Shoemake Ex Rel. Guardian v. FerrerWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Badgley Mullins Turner, Pllc App./x-resp. v. Leslie Spencer & Tammy S., Blakey, Resp./x-app.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2018
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.