Legal Opinion

Goebel v. Lauderdale

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 29, 1989No. H004388PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ELIA, J.

Appellant Dale Randall Goebel filed suit against respondent James Lauderdale for attorney malpractice. The trial court granted respondent’s motion for nonsuit on the grounds that the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and because appellant did not establish a prima facie case of negligence. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting the motion for nonsuit on the issue of respondent’s negligence, and erred in granting the nonsuit based on the running of the statute of limitations.

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant is a general contractor. In…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Smith v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Raber v. TuminCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Kirsch v. DuryeaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Laird v. BlackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Martinez v. BadisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
  3. Sirott v. LattsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. Worton v. WortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Turley v. WooldridgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991

9 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