Legal Opinion

Godfrey v. Bick & Monte, P.C.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 29, 1986No. 16-84-00181; CA A34607PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarden, J.

This is a professional malpractice action. Plaintiff appeals the granting of defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the ground that the complaint was not filed within the applicable Statute of Limitations. The trial court was correct and we affirm.

In the underlying corporate stock transaction structured by defendant attorneys and certified public accountants, plaintiff claims that he incurred additional federal and state income tax liability as a result of defendants’ negligence. A chronology of events, adopted from plaintiffs brief, follows:

Date Event

December 19,1979 An IRS examiner’s…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States National Bank of Oregon v. DaviesOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Jaquith v. FerrisOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  3. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. SpeerstraCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  4. Brown v. BabcockOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Fliegel v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Lillicrap v. MartinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1991
  2. Thomas v. ClearyAlaska Supreme Court · 1989
  3. CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
  4. Edwards v. DemedisCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  5. Christianson v. Conrad-Houston InsuranceAlaska Supreme Court · 2014

12 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