Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Franko v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 2, 1988No. 1 CA-CIV 9225Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGrant, Judge

I concur in Judge Greer’s analysis and holding as to the breach of contract count of the complaint and as to attorney’s fees.

As to negligence (legal malpractice) I dissent from Judge Greer’s analysis and holding.

Judge Greer agrees that a plaintiff may maintain an action in negligence by showing that the defendant owed plaintiff a duty, that the duty was breached, and that the breach proximately caused an injury, which resulted in actual damages. Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, 139 Ariz. 184, 187, 677 P.2d 1292, 1295 (1984). Once an attorney-client relationship is established, the…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/GillelandArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Page v. FrazierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  3. DeVaux v. American Home Assurance Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  4. Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & KeefeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  5. Coburn v. City of TucsonArizona Supreme Court · 1984

19 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