Chase v. Gilbert

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that plaintiff must show more than speculation and that attorney’s negligence caused a legally cognizable injury
• explaining that questions like “[w]hat [an individual] might have done” or “what the result would have been” “involves the kind of speculation [that] courts have rejected as grounds for holding that an attorney has been negligent in performing his duty to his client”
• ‘We hold that, even assuming negligence by Chase, GBC has failed to establish that his negligence caused it to be disqualified for the radio station Icense.”
• “more is required than speculation” to establish that an “attorney’s negligence caused a legally cognizable injury”
• “Expert testimony must be presented to establish the standard care unless the attorney’s lack of care and skill is so obvious that the trier of fact can find negligence as a matter of common knowledge.”
• “Expert testimony must be presented to establish the standard of care ‘unless the attorney’s lack of care and skill is so obvious that the trier of fact can find negligence as a matter of common knowledge.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).