Estate of Fleming v. Nicholson

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that d’Arc Turcotte v. Estate of LaRose, 153 Vt. 196, 569 A.2d 1086 (1989), did not eliminate traditional discretionary capacity to award prejudgment interest
• noting that expert witnesses are not necessary where the professional’s lack of care is clear
• noting that expert testimony on standard of care generally required to support legal malpractice claim unless lack of care is so apparent that only common knowledge and experience are needed to comprehend it
• noting that claims of negligence by professionals are generally “demonstrated using expert testimony” and that expert testimony is required if “the alleged negligent conduct is a matter of judgment unique to that profession”
• deferring to trial court’s determination of whether prejudgment interest is available in cases where the amount of damages is not reasonably ascertainable
• reaffirming rule that prejudgment interest is mandated where “damages are liquidated or reasonably ascertainable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).