Eduardo Cortez v. Joseph G. Gindhart, Esquire D/B/A Joseph G. Gindhart & Associates and Joseph G. Gindhart & Associates

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that criminal malpractice claim did not require proof of exoneration when allegation did not depend on invalidity of plain- tiff’s conviction or his admission of guilt
• noting that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is subsumed in a malpractice claim where the “only fiduciary relationship identified is that of attorney and client” and the conduct underlying both claims is the same
• subsuming claims of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty into a legal malpractice claim where a client sued his lawyer for improper billing
• affirming summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty because it was based on the same facts as the legal malpractice claim and \failed to distinguish the breach of fiduciary duty claim from his legal malpractice claim\
• \Competent opposition requires 'competent evidential material' beyond mere 'speculation' and 'fanciful arguments.'\ (quoting Hoffman v. Asseenontv.Com, Inc., 404 N.J. Super. 415, 425-26 (App. Div. 2009))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).