Legal Opinion

St. Paul Title Co. v. Meier

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 30, 1986No. A022974PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HANING, J.

Appellant St. Paul Title Company was the escrow agent in a real estate sale in which it was sued by the purchaser for breach of contract, based on the manner in which it implemented the escrow instructions. It cross-complained against Richard Meier, the purchaser’s attorney, on the theory that he negligently advised his client concerning the drafting and formation of escrow instructions. The trial court entered summary judgment on the cross-complaint in the attorney’s favor, ruling that he owed no duty to the escrow agent. We agree and affirm.

The gist of appellant’s action is…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Goodman v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Lysick v. WalcomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  5. Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & BaerwitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. In Re Complex Asbestos LitigationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  2. Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & WhitfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. In Re Rexplore, Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1988
  4. Schick v. LernerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
  5. Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Kress AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API