Legal Opinion
Glaze v. Larsen
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided October 17, 2002No. 2 CA-CV 2001-0196PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FLOÉEZ, J.
¶ 1 Appellant James Glaze challenges the trial court’s order granting appellee Eric Larsen’s motion to dismiss Glaze’s complaint for legal malpractice on the ground that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. Larsen had represented Glaze in a criminal matter, both at trial and on appeal. Glaze contends that the statute of limitations on his legal malpractice action did not begin to run until the criminal proceeding was dismissed with prejudice. We agree and reverse.
¶ 2 Because this issue involves a question of law, we review the trial court’s ruling de novo.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Stevens v. BisphamOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Gebhardt v. O'ROURKEMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Steele v. KehoeSupreme Court of Florida · 1999
- Shaw v. State, Department of Administration, Public Defender AgencyAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
- Amfac Distribution Corp. v. MillerArizona Supreme Court · 1983
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Glaze v. LarsenArizona Supreme Court · 2004
- Rodney Woidtke v. St. Clair County, Illinois, St. Clair County Public Defender's Office, Brian K. TrentmanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003
- Noske v. FriedbergCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
- Althaus v. CornelioCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- Althaus v. Penn-America Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.