Cecala v. Newman

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that in legal malpractice suits, the appropriate arbiter must “determine what the result should have been, not what it could have been”
• “Determining what ‘could have’ or ‘might have’ been decided in the underlying action is speculative and . . . not sufficient for sustaining causation[.]”
• “Determining what ‘could have’ or 24 ‘might have’ been decided in the underlying action is speculative and is not the objective 25 of an action for legal malpractice”
• applying the two-year 20 limitation period of A.R.S. § 12-542 to an IIED claim
• defining a cognizable injury as “the loss of a right, remedy, or interest, or the imposition of a liability” caused by an attorney’s ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2
• “State ethics rules do not, of course, create private rights of action for aggrieved clients.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).