Legal Opinion

Rantz v. Kaufman

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided February 28, 2005No. 04SA273PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Mullarkey

I. Introduction

In this original proceeding, two attorneys, Ann Kaufman and Rick Levinson, ask us to determine whether a former client, whom they had represented in a criminal case, must obtain postconviction relief before filing a malpractice claim against them. We decide that obtaining postconviction relief is not a prerequisite to filing suit. If postconviction relief has been sought and denied on the merits, however, the court’s denial of relief may have a preclusive effect on the malpractice suit under appropriate circumstances. Here, the order of the postconviction court denying Geoffrey…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Peeler v. Hughes & LuceTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Krahn v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Stevens v. BisphamOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Gebhardt v. O'ROURKEMichigan Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Argus Real Estate, Inc. v. E-470 Public Highway AuthoritySupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
  2. Barnett v. Elite Properties of America, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010
  3. Robert Allen Barker v. Donald H. Capotosto and Thomas M. MageeSupreme Court of Iowa · 2016
  4. Humphries v. DETCHWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Natural Energy Resources Co. v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 2006

46 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