Legal Opinion
Short v. Demopolis
Washington Supreme Court
Decided November 6, 1984No. 49617-0PublishedCited by 118 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDolliver, J.
May lawyers be subject to liability under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW 19.86? Defendant Chris Demopolis appeals the Superior Court order which dismissed his counterclaims under CR 12(b)(6) for CPA violations against the plaintiffs' law firm of Short and Cressman.
In March 1980, Demopolis met with Douglas Hartwich, partner in plaintiffs’ law firm, to discuss representation in two pending lawsuits. The first involved dissolution of a real estate partnership. The complaint alleged damages in excess of $200,000. After 2 days of trial, the action settled for $7,500. Attorney fees totaled…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Goldfarb v. Virginia State BarSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- National Society of Professional Engineers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by118 opinions
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- Hizey v. CarpenterWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Jackson v. R. G. Whipple, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
113 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.