Legal Opinion

Bresette v. Knapp

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 2, 1960No. 1882PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHulburd, C. J.

The plaintiff is asking to recover damages from the defendant, an attorney-at-law. He alleges that having retained and employed the defendant as his attorney with respect to a certain action, that the latter did "so negligently attend the plaintiff’s claim that, by and through defendant’s want to exercise his skill, care and competency that the claim of the plaintiff against Wilfred Gauthier and the City of Montpelier for damages was lost to the plaintiff and rendered worthless because of the operation and running of the statute of limitations.”

At the trial below it was the defendant’s claim…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pyeatt v. EstusSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  2. MacAuley v. HydeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1945
  3. Roquemore v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  4. Mount Ida School, Inc. v. GilmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
  5. In re J. W. Rowe Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Krupp v. KruppSupreme Court of Vermont · 1967
  2. George v. CatonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. Crest Investment Trust, Inc. v. ComstockCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  4. Hedges v. DurranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
  5. deNEERGAARD v. DillinghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1963

15 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