Legal Opinion

Harrigfeld v. Hancock

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 2004No. 29445PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EISMANN, Justice.

This is a certified question of law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding whether a direct attorney-client relationship is required to exist in order for the intended beneficiary of testamentary instruments to sue the attorney who drafted the instruments for malpractice. We hold that it is except in a very narrow circumstance.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In December 1992, the defendant-respondent J.D. Hancock, a partner in the law firm of Smith, Hancock & Zollinger, prepared a will for Delilah Henry. He subsequently prepared three codicils…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Pelham v. GriesheimerIllinois Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Barcelo v. ElliottTexas Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Taylor v. McNicholsIdaho Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Estate of Becker v. CallahanIdaho Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Taylor v. MaileIdaho Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Printcraft Press, Inc. v. Sunnyside Park Utilities, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Bishop v. OwensIdaho Supreme Court · 2012

34 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