Catizone v. Wolff

How courts have described this case

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

• finding Catizone’s belief that attorney Wolff was representing him not reasonable because “[t]here is no credible evidence that Wolff either affirmatively led Catizone to believe that he was acting as Catizone’s attorney or knowingly allowed Catizone to proceed under that misconception”
• “The fact that an individual has previously been represented by an attorney does not mean that that attorney represents that person for any or all subsequent, unrelated ... matters.”
• finding factor inapplicable for similar reasons

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).