Legal Opinion
Larochelle v. Hodsdon
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided March 21, 1997PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DANA, Justice.
[¶ 1] Leo F. Laroehelle appeals from the summary judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County, Fritzsche, J.) in favor of Stephen Hodsdon on all five counts of Laroc-helle’s legal malpractice action. Laroehelle argues the court erred in granting a summary judgment because, contrary to the court’s conclusion, his claims are not barred by the statute of limitations. Hodsdon argues he is entitled to a summary judgment because of the statute of limitations, or alternatively, because of any of three alternate grounds: collateral estoppel, the lack of an attorney-client…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State Mutual Insurance v. BraggSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1991
- Kandlis v. HuotariSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
- Board of Overseers of the Bar v. DineenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1985
- Olson v. AlbertSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1987
- Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. RichardsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McAlister v. Slosberg (In Re Slosberg)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine · 1998
- R.D.H. Communications, Ltd. v. WinstonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Brodsky v. Hercules, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1997
- Keatinge v. BiddleDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2002
- Mangan v. RumoDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2002