MacHado-miller v. Mersereau & Shannon, LLP
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.
Plaintiff alleged that Mersereau, her attorney in an earlier case and a member of the law firm named as defendant in this one, committed malpractice in the earlier case, tried in United States District Court of Oregon, by failing to argue for the application of California law. The trial court in this case granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs. Plaintiff appeals. We hold that, even if defendant had argued for the application of California law in the underlying federal case, the trial court there would properly have rejected the argument and that therefore…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Palko v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Moore v. City of East ClevelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Bowers v. HardwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Spirit Partners, LP v. Stoel Rives LLPCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
- Capital One Bank v. FortCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
- CACV OF COLORADO, LLC v. StevensCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
- M+W Zander, U.S. Operations, Inc. v. Scott Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- Konecranes, Inc. v. Scott SinclairDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2004
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.