Gallucci v. Schaffer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that fraudulent concealment did not apply to a case in which the defendant law firm had told plaintiff that there was nothing more it could do for him in his workers’ compensation case because he was already aware of his allegedly insufficient payments for over a year
• declining to apply the rule where plaintiff offered no evidence of contacts with his lawyer about the relevant matter between the alleged malpractice and a phone call 28 years later

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).