Legal Opinion

Pizel v. Zuspann

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 13, 1990No. 63,261PublishedCited by 83 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Allegrucci, J.:

This is a legal malpractice action brought by the potential beneficiaries of an inter vivos trust of Charles Pizel, deceased, against the defendants, attorneys Eugene P. Zuspann and B.E. Whalen.

Prior to trial, defendant Zuspann’s motion for summary judgment was granted. Plaintiffs appeal this decision. The claims against defendant Whalen proceeded to a seven-day jury trial. The jury assessed fault at 60% to the appellants and Charles Pizel, 35% to defendant Whalen, and 5% to defendant Zuspann. Damages of $204,550 were awarded to…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Nelson v. MillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1980
  5. Bowman v. DohertySupreme Court of Kansas · 1984

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

3Cited by83 opinions

  1. Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pacific RailroadCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007
  2. Barcelo v. ElliottTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Gorski v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Chem-Age Industries, Inc. v. GloverSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Blair v. IngHawaii Supreme Court · 2001

78 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