Legal Opinion

Hale v. Groce

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1987No. CC A8511-06822; CA A38914; SC S33630, S33631PublishedCited by 103 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLinde, J.

Defendant, who is an attorney, was directed by a client to prepare testamentary instruments and to include a bequest of a specified sum to plaintiff. After the client’s death, it was discovered that the gift was not included either in the will or in a related trust instrument. After an unsuccessful attempt to obtain judicial reformation of the will and trust, plaintiff brought the present action for damages against the attorney.

The complaint alleged as two separate claims, first, that defendant was negligent in a number of particulars and, second, that he failed to carry out a contractual…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Guy v. LiederbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. J'Aire Corp. v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by103 opinions

  1. Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of BronsonOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Barcelo v. ElliottTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLPOregon Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Blair v. IngHawaii Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Simpson v. CalivasSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994

98 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