Legal Opinion
Viner v. Sweet
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 23, 2004No. B138149PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1221Opinion
PERLUSS, P. J.
In our initial decision in this case (Viner v. Sweet (Sept. 28, 2001, B138149) [superseded by grant of review Dec. 19, 2001 (S101964)] (Viner I)), we held to establish causation in fact the plaintiffs in a transactional legal malpractice action are not required to prove the opposing side in contract negotiations would have given them a better deal than they actually obtained had their attorney not been negligent and affirmed most of the jury’s multimillion dollar damage award in favor of plaintiffs Michael Viner and Deborah Raffin Viner. The Supreme Court reversed,…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Dyer v. MacDougallCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- American Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Gibbons v. LudlowSupreme Court of Colorado · 2013
- Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Mayes v. BryanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Wood v. JamisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.