Gamboa v. Shaw

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that purported shareholder was not in privity with attorney who represented corporation and thus could not maintain legal malpractice claim based on attorney’s representation of corporation
• holding that purported shareholder was not in privity with attorney who represented corporation and thus could not maintain legal malpractice claim based on attorney = s representation of corporation
• declining to deviate from privity requirement to allow shareholders’ action against corporate attorneys
• explaining the need for privity between attorney and legal malpractice claimant
• explaining the need for privity between attorney and legal malpractice claimant
• explaining the need for privity between attorney and legal malpractice claimant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).