Legal Opinion

Shoemake v. Ferrer

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 2010No. 81812-6PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

¶1 This case presents an issue of first impression involving a determination of damages for legal malpractice. After he admitted liability, the trial court ordered attorney-petitioner Douglas Ferrer to pay client-respondents Andrea and Keith Shoemake interest on a settlement that the Shoemakes would have received had Ferrer not mishandled their case. The trial court calculated the interest on a figure of $60,000, representing the $100,000 settlement less Ferrer’s 40 percent contingency fee.1 The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the prejudgment interest in this case should have been…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Eriks v. DenverWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Hansen v. RothausWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Fisher Properties, Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Savage v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Davis v. Baugh Industrial Contractors, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Pamela Sue Hook v. Tito Trevino, Individually, and Tito Trevino D/B/A Trevino Law OfficesSupreme Court of Iowa · 2013
  2. In re the Marriage of FarmerWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Schmidt v. CooganWashington Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Badgley Mullins Turner, Pllc App./x-resp. v. Leslie Spencer & Tammy S., Blakey, Resp./x-app.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2018
  5. In re the Suspension of WelcomeSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2013

8 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