Legal Opinion

Flint v. Hart

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided June 4, 1996No. 13837-2-IIIPublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, C.J.

Under current Washington law, if a plaintiff exercises independent business judgment and elects not to pursue an available legal remedy, the defendant’s wrongful act cannot be the proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages. Horn v. Moberg, 68 Wn. App. 551, 558, 844 P.2d 452, review denied, 121 Wn.2d 1025 (1993). The law firm of Hart & Winfree did not retain a security interest in the general intangibles for Gordon M. Flint when it represented him during the sale of his funeral home business to Michael and Vicki Meyer. The Meyers defaulted and later filed bankruptcy. Mr. Flint settled his claim…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. King v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Prier v. Refrigeration Engineering Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Smith v. KingWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Tradewell Group, Inc. v. MavisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1993
  5. Marassi v. LauCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1993

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. State v. HutchinsonWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State v. HutchinsonWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. MB Industries, LLC v. CNA Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 2011
  4. City of Seattle v. BlumeWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. City of Seattle v. BlumeWashington Supreme Court · 1997

27 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