Legal Opinion
Smith v. Haynsworth
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided July 1, 1996No. 24460PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Waller, Justice:
In this legal malpractice action, the jury returned a verdict for respondents. We reverse.
FACTS
This case arises out of respondent, Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard’s (Haynsworth) representation of appellants, Smith and Murray, in a real estate development scheme. Smith and Murray contracted with a developer, Bill Bashor, to purchase lots on Wild Dunes. Bashor planned to develop the lots, then sell them for a profit. Two of the investors in the scheme were partners in the Haynsworth firm. Haynsworth represented Bashor in his acquisition and sale of the lots, as *435well as in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hizey v. CarpenterWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Lazy Seven Coal Sales, Inc. v. Stone & Hinds, P.C.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1991
- Sommers v. McKinneyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1996
- Allen v. Lefkoff, Duncan, Grimes & Dermer, P.C.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1995
- King v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. PleasantSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
- Twin City Fire Insurance Company v. Ben Arnold-Sunbelt Beverage Company Of South Carolina, LpCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
- RFT Management Co. v. Tinsley & Adams L.L.P.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2012
- Baxt v. LiloiaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1998
- Ellis v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.