holding that legal malpractice plaintiff must demonstrate that but for attorney’s negligence, plaintiff had an underlying, recoverable claim
How later courts described this case
- holding that legal malpractice plaintiff must demonstrate that but for attorney’s negligence, plaintiff had an underlying, recoverable claim
- in legal malpractice action, plaintiff had burden of proving both that the attorney negligently permitted the statute of limitations to extinguish plaintiff's claim and that plaintiff could have recovered on that claim
- rejecting Sitton, 385 F.2d 869
- psychiatrist, not board certified, permitted to testify
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Rogosheske, Justice
(dissenting).
Although I agree that the verdict is excessive, I believe the better procedure in a case such as this, where the trial court found an evidentiary foundation for the award and has not directly passed upon a specific request for a reduction, is to remand with directions to the trial court to determine the amount of the remittitur, as I previously have urged in Auger v. Rofshus, 267 Minn. 87, 94 , 125 N. W. (2d) 159, 164 . Cf. Soltis v. Geary, 287 Minn. 19 , 176 N. W. (2d) 633 .
MR. Justice Otis took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Kelly, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.