Legal Opinion
Moorehead v. Miller
District Court, Virgin Islands
Decided August 6, 1984No. Civil No. 83-105PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action for legal malpractice is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff, James J. Moorehead (“Moore-head”), acting pro se, claims that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as there are no genuine issues of material fact. Defendant, George Marshall Miller (“Miller”), admits that the facts are uncontroverted, but argues that the action is time barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons which follow, both motions for summary judgment will be denied.
I. FACTS
On…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Gratton Earl Moore v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- WILCOX v. the Executors of PlummerSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Christy v. SalitermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Chocktoot v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1977
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Shihshu Walter Wei v. State of HawaiiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Green, Francis v. Humphrey Elevator and Truck Company and Maintenance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Simon v. JosephSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2013
- Veal v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
- Arlington Funding Services, Inc. v. GeigelSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2009
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.