Legal Opinion

Barnard v. Langer

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 25, 2003No. B154724PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VOGEL (MIRIAM A.), J .

This is a legal malpractice action in which the plaintiffs claimed their former lawyers settled the underlying inverse condemnation case for too little money, and the lawyers (by cross-complaint) sought the fee they earned in the underlying case. The trial court disposed of the plaintiffs’ claim by nonsuit on the ground that, assuming negligence, the plaintiffs’ damages were too speculative, then gave judgment to the lawyers on their cross-complaint. The plaintiffs appeal, claiming the lawyers were not entitled to their fee and that the trial court should not have…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Campbell v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Agnew v. ParksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Ass'n v. WoodsideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. HyonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Slovensky v. FriedmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Filbin v. FitzgeraldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. J.B.B. Inv. Partners Ltd. v. Fair, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  5. J.B.B. Investment Partners v. FairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019

3 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