Legal Opinion
Friedman v. Dozorc
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided May 22, 1978No. Docket 31244PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtA. C. Miller, J.
This appeal raises the interesting question: Does an attorney owe a duty to persons other than his client?
Physician Friedman brings this suit against attorneys Dozorc and Golden alleging that they breached a duty owed to him in negligently filing and pursuing a medical malpractice suit against him that resulted in a directed verdict of no cause of action at the close of plaintiffs proofs. Codefendants in the original suit subsequently filed a motion for costs under GCR 111.6 which was denied by Judge Charles Farmer, the trial judge.
In addition to this claim in negligence, more traditional…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Savings Bank v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Williams v. PolgarMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
- Howell v. Vito's Trucking and Excavating Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1971
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Friedman v. DozorcMichigan Supreme Court · 1981
- Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc. v. RoloffOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- Vallinoto v. DiSandroSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1997
- Wong v. TaborIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
- Weaver v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.