Bohna v. HUGHES, THORSNESS, GANTZ
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MATTHEWS, Justice.
INTRODUCTION
These appeals arise from judgments in an attorney malpractice case and a related indemnity claim. The jury returned a verdict setting damages suffered by plaintiff Phillip Bohna and assigning fault among: *7481) Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), 2) Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin (HT), and 3) Bohna himself. The superior court entered two judgments on the verdict. The principal judgment was in favor of Bohna and against HT. The other judgment was on Allstate’s cross-claim for indemnity and was in favor of HT and against Allstate.
The basis of the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited71 opinions
- Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Moore v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1976
- Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical ContractorsOregon Supreme Court · 1965
- Reese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1973
- Edna Goldstein v. Robert E. Kelleher, United States of America, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- Power Constructors, Inc. v. Taylor & HintzeAlaska Supreme Court · 1998
- Troyer v. AdamsHawaii Supreme Court · 2003
- Carrano v. Yale-New Haven HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Chi of Alaska, Inc. v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 1993
- Hunter v. UraTennessee Supreme Court · 2005
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.