Legal Opinion

Roberts v. Fearey

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 15, 1999No. 9612-09796; CA A99747PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLinder, J.

The issue before us is whether a trustee’s attorney can be Hable to the beneficiaries of the trust for legal malpractice. Plaintiff appeals from summary judgment entered in defendant’s favor and argues that the trial court should have applied the general foreseeability test for negligence and should not have taken a “poficy approach” to decfining to recognize a basis for malpractice Habifity under the circumstances of this case. We hold that defendant did not owe a duty to protect the beneficiaries from their economic losses and therefore is not liable as a matter of law. Accordingly, we…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Jones v. General Motors Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1JOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Spinner v. NuttMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
  4. Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of BronsonOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Hale v. GroceOregon Supreme Court · 1987

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLPOregon Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Reynolds v. SchrockOregon Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Borissoff v. Taylor & FaustCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLCOregon Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Smith v. CimmetCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

16 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