Fitzgerald v. Congleton

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that legal malpractice claims alleging economic loss are governed by statute of limitations in § 511
• concluding that court’s failure to give parties advance notice of conversion of motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment did not result in reversible error where court subsequently granted party opportunity to respond
• concluding that court’s failure to give parties advance notice of conversion of motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment did not result in reversible error where court subsequently granted party opportunity to respond
• holding that the nature of the harm is the determining factor in statute of limitations determinations and applying the “residual” statute of limitations — not the one for property damage — to a claim for economic losses
• holding that the plaintiffs claims for damages resulting from her mental anguish, emotional distress, and personal humiliation constitute injuries “to the person” and fall within the three year statute of limitations set forth at 12 Vt.Stat.Ann. § 512(4)
• noting that, where language change is part of general statutory revision as opposed to direct amendatory act, arguably change may not be intended to alter meaning

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).