About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/rettlglyrs0051 and id is 1 raw text is: 




  § 14. Formation of a Client-Lawyer Relationship

  C.A.4, 2014. Com. (h) quot. in ftn. In a tort case based on alleged asbestos exposure, this court reversed
  and remanded the court of appeals' decision denying defendant's motion for vacatur of an underlying
  remand order. In the course of its discussion, this court pointed out that it used the phrase plaintiffs'
  counsel to refer to both of plaintiffs' attorneys, because those attorneys came from the same firm. The
  court explained that, according to Restatement Third of The Law Governing Lawyers § 14, Comment h,
  when a client retained a lawyer, the lawyer's firm assumed the authority and responsibility of
  representing that client, unless the circumstances indicated otherwise. Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co,
  772 F.3d 1001, 1005.

  D.Ariz.2014. Subsec. (1)(a) quot. in case quot. in sup. Insured who originally lived in Michigan but later
  moved to Arizona brought claims sounding in breach of contract and bad faith against insurer, alleging
  that insurer breached a personal-injury-protection policy it had issued to insured's father in Michigan by
  failing to pay insured benefits due and to inform him of the extent of his benefits after an automobile
  accident in Michigan rendered him a quadriplegic. This court denied in part insurer's motion for
  summary judgment, holding that a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether insured knew or
  reasonably should have known of insurer's alleged bad-faith actions prior to the deadline for the statute
  of limitations. Citing Restatement Third of the Law Governing Lawyers § 14 on formation of an
  attomey-client relationship, the court noted that there was conflicting evidence as to whether insured's
  former attorney continued to represent him during the relevant period such that attorney's knowledge of
  the extent of insured's entitlement to attendant-care benefits could be imputed to insured. Barten v. State
  Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 28 F.Supp.3d 978, 988.

  Ill.App.2015. Cit. in sup. Private-equity company and investors brought a legal-malpractice action
  against attorney and law firm that specialized in intellectual-property law, alleging that plaintiffs
  invested in a company that relied on a number of processes that were the subject of patents based on
  defendants' misrepresentation that the company owned and controlled the patents. The trial court
  entered judgment for plaintiffs. This court affirmed, holding that defendants owed a duty to all investors
  involved in the transaction. Citing Restatement Third of the Law Governing Lawyers § 14, the court
  explained that, even though the retention agreement was only between private-equity company and
  defendants, defendants knew that there were other investors involved in the transaction that were
  dependent on their work, and the evidence showed that defendants consented to perform services for the
  transaction as a whole. Meriturn Partners, LLC v. Banner and Witcoff, Ltd., 391 ll.Dec. 775, 780, 31
  N.E.3d 451, 456.

'A L I      For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most