Legal Opinion
Browne v. Robb
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided November 5, 1990PublishedCited by 126 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOORE, Justice.
We review a plethora of civil claims asserted by plaintiff Cecil Browne against his former counsel, James A. Robb, Esquire. The latter was appointed to represent Browne, as an indigent accused of a crime, pursuant to 29 Del.C. § 4605. 1 After his conviction Browne filed suit against Robb in the Superior Court claiming: (1) legal malpractice; (2) Robb’s breach of contract to the court by failing to take certain action during Browne’s criminal trial; and (3) common law fraud by Robb’s misrepresenting the level of his legal skills and experience. Browne also claimed deprivations…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Abel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by126 opinions
- Abry Partners V, L.P. v. F & W Acquisition LLCCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2006
- Brown v. United Water Delaware, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2010
- Doe 30's Mother v. BradleySuperior Court of Delaware · 2012
- Coyazo v. StateNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1995
- Triple C Railcar Service, Inc. v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1993
121 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.