Legal Opinion
Harrison v. Beckham
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided May 24, 1999No. A99A0098PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, Judge.
The facts underlying this case have appeared before us in a previous appeal. In Harrison v. Digital Equip. Corp., 219 Ga. App. 464 (465 SE2d 494) (1995) (Harrison I), we affirmed the trial court’s holding that Brenda Harrison’s pro se action against her employer, an architect, and a contractor for damages resulting from “sick building syndrome” was barred by the applicable statute of limitation. Harrison then brought suit against attorney Walter H. Beckham III, alleging that he committed legal malpractice by failing to advise her regarding the applicable statute of limitation in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1986
- Hunter, MacLean, Exley & Dunn, P.C. v. FrameSupreme Court of Georgia · 1998
- Moore v. Bank of FitzgeraldCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
- Hallberg v. Flat Creek Animal Clinic, P. C.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
- Plumlee v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- In Re Estate of SimsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2003
- Bryant v. JonesDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2006
- Scarbrough v. HallamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1999
- Jordan Jones & Goulding, Inc. v. Newell Recycling of Atlanta, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2009
- Wood v. Archbold Medical Center, Inc.District Court, M.D. Georgia · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.