Legal Opinion
Elam v. Hyatt Legal Services
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 2, 1989No. 88-923PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The issue before this court is whether appellants, as remaindermen, may maintain a cause of action against appellees. We agree with the trial court that the holding in Scholler, supra, controls. Paragraph one of the syllabus in Scholler states:
“An attorney is immune from liability to third persons arising from his performance as an attorney in good faith on behalf of, and with the knowledge of his client, unless such third person is in privity with the client or the attorney acts maliciously.”
Our holding differs from that of the trial court, however, because we find that the remaindermen were…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re the Estate of LarsonWashington Supreme Court · 1985
- In Re Estate of CorbinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1980
- Robbins v. National Bank of Ga.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1978
- Dickerson v. Union Nat. Bank of Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
- Estate of BosicoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
3Cited by28 opinions
- Firestone v. GalbreathCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1992
- Arpadi v. First MSP Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- Hahn v. SatulloOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
- Firestone v. GalbreathCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1992
- Firestone v. GalbreathDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1990
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.