Legal Opinion
Reynolds v. Schrock
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided September 8, 2006No. CC C991357CV; CA A119200; SC S52503PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBalmer, J.
This case requires us to determine whether a lawyer may be liable to a third party for aiding and abetting a client’s breach of fiduciary duty, and, if the lawyer may be so liable, what circumstances must exist to impose liability. Plaintiff 1 sued defendant for breach of fiduciary duty, and he also sued defendant’s lawyer for his role in that alleged breach. The trial court entered summary judgment in the lawyer’s favor, and the Court of Appeals reversed. Reynolds v. Schrock, 197 Or App 564, 107 P3d 52 (2005).
We allowed the lawyer’s petition for review and now reverse the decision of the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Spinner v. NuttMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Chem-Age Industries, Inc. v. GloverSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
- Straube v. LarsonOregon Supreme Court · 1979
- Granewich v. HardingOregon Supreme Court · 1999
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Taylor v. McNicholsIdaho Supreme Court · 2010
- Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & StifelHawaii Supreme Court · 2007
- El Camino Resources, Ltd. v. Huntington National BankDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2010
- Deep Photonics Corp. v. LaChapelleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
- Padrick v. LyonsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.