Legal Opinion
Merzlak v. Purcell
Montana Supreme Court
Decided February 13, 1992No. 91-357PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Weber
Appellants Joe R. Merzlak and Janene L. Merzlak (Merzlaks) brought an action for legal malpractice against their attorney James E. Purcell and his law firm Henningsen & Purcell, PC. (Purcell). The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, found Purcell negligently represented the Merzlaks, ordered the return of $12,398.20 in attorney’s fees together with interest, and denied punitive damages. Merzlaks appeal the amount of the judgment. Purcell cross-appeals. We reverse and remand.
We find the following issues dispositive:
1. Did the Merzlaks satisfy all elements necessary to prove legal…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carlson v. MortonMontana Supreme Court · 1987
- Lorash v. EpsteinMontana Supreme Court · 1989
- Weaver Ex Rel. Weaver-Maxwell, Inc. v. Law Firm of Graybill, Ostrem, Warner & CrottyMontana Supreme Court · 1990
- Kinniburgh v. GarrityMontana Supreme Court · 1990
3Cited by34 opinions
- In re A.S.Montana Supreme Court · 2004
- Stanley L. and Carolyn M. Watkins Trust v. LacostaMontana Supreme Court · 2004
- Redies v. Attorneys Liability Protection SocietyMontana Supreme Court · 2007
- Thomas v. BetheaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
- Labair Ex Rel. Labair v. CareyMontana Supreme Court · 2012
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.