Legal Opinion
Chicoine v. Bignall
Idaho Supreme Court
Decided August 10, 1992No. 19113PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Justice.
This is a legal malpractice case. The issue presented is whether the two-year statute of limitations contained in I.C. § 5-219(4) barred the claim. We hold that the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Objectively ascertained, none of the damage caused by the lawyer’s negligence occurred more than two years prior to the filing of the action.
I
THE BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS.
Bliss O. Bignall, a lawyer, represented Father R. Denis Chicoine and several other persons associated with Christ the King Priory, Inc. (referred to collectively as Chicoine) in a lawsuit…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Stephens v. StearnsIdaho Supreme Court · 1984
- Billings v. Sisters of Mercy of IdahoIdaho Supreme Court · 1964
- Bonz v. SudweeksIdaho Supreme Court · 1991
- Streib v. VeigelIdaho Supreme Court · 1985
- Renner v. EdwardsIdaho Supreme Court · 1970
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Stanley L. and Carolyn M. Watkins Trust v. LacostaMontana Supreme Court · 2004
- City of McCall v. BuxtonIdaho Supreme Court · 2009
- Tingley v. HarrisonIdaho Supreme Court · 1994
- Lapham v. StewartIdaho Supreme Court · 2002
- Blahd v. Richard B. Smith, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2005
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.