Legal Opinion

Hansen v. Anderson, Wilmarth & Van Der Maaten

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided July 5, 2001No. 99-1229PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAVORATO, Chief Justice.

In this legal malpractice action, clients sued their lawyers for malpractice stemming from the lawyers’ handling of a commercial transaction for the clients. The lawyers in turn sought indemnity from the lawyer representing the opposing party in the transaction for fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with that transaction. The district court concluded there was no duty supporting an indemnity claim and, on this basis, sustained a motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. We conclude there was such a duty and therefore reverse and remand.

I. Background…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Iowa Power and Light Co. v. Abild Construction Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1966
  2. Loose v. Offshore Navigation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
  3. Ezzone v. RiccardiSupreme Court of Iowa · 1994
  4. Cicone v. URS Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1986
  5. Peters v. LyonsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1969

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & GladstoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
  2. McNally & Nimergood v. Neumann-Kiewit Constructors, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2002
  3. Wells Dairy, Inc. v. American Industrial Refrigeration, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2009
  4. John T. Jones Construction Co. v. Hoot General ConstructionDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 2008
  5. Cochran v. Gehrke ConstructionDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 2002

7 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