Legal Opinion

Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 10, 1987No. CV-86-0572-PRPublishedCited by 116 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FELDMAN, Vice Chief Justice.

This is a legal malpractice action in which the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court of appeals reversed and allowed plaintiffs attorney’s fees on appeal. Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners, 155 Ariz. 515, 747 P.2d 1214 (App.1986). We granted review for the sole purpose of determining whether a legal malpractice action “arises out of a contract” so as to be eligible for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).

I. FACTS

In February 1982, police officer Jeffrey Ross was killed during a narcotics raid on a bar owned…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial HospitalArizona Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Sparks v. Republic National Life InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Ford v. Revlon, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by116 opinions

  1. Bruno, D., Aplts. v. Erie InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaArizona Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Standard Chartered PLC v. Price WaterhouseCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
  4. Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1994

111 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