Barratt v. Goldberg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an entire two-year limitations period constitutes ample time to file a legal malpractice complaint once the defendants’ fraudulent concealment is discovered
• holding that an entire two-year limitations period constitutes ample time to file a legal malpractice complaint once the defendants’ fraudulent concealment is discovered
• upholding the circuit court’s decision denying the plaintiff leave to file a legal malpractice complaint
• noting Hagney’s pleading requirement and distinguishing Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Leydig, Volt & Mayer, 158 Ill. 2d 240, 251-53 (1994), on the basis that the “defendant law firm in that case made continuous reassurances to the plaintiff, which delayed plaintiffs filing of her suit”
• noting Hagney=s pleading requirement and distinguishing Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Leydig, Voit & Mayer, 158 Ill. 2d 240, 251-53 (1994), on the basis that the Adefendant law firm in that case made continuous reassurances to the plaintiff, which delayed plaintiff=s filing of her suit@
• “the allegedly fraudulent statements or omissions that form the basis of the cause of action may not constitute the fraudulent concealment in the absence of a showing that they tend to conceal the cause of action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).