Governmental Interinsurance Exchange v. Judge

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[t]he question [was] not whether the County initially installed the correct traffic control marking,” but whether it “made any improvement to Galena Road, thereby undertaking the duty to maintain that improvement in a reasonably safe condition” (emphasis omitted and added)
• “ ‘The issue of proximate causation in a legal malpractice setting is generally considered a factual issue to be decided by the trier of fact’ ”
• a legal malpractice plaintiff must litigate a “case within a case” in order to establish that the plaintiff would have been successful but for the attorney’s negligence
• the plaintiff must plead and prove the elements of a legal malpractice claim
• the plaintiff must plead and prove the elements of a legal malpractice claim
• “[H]ad defendants perfected the appeal in the underlying case, the appellate court would not have reversed the judgment based on section 3 — 104; and, therefore, defendants’ negligence in failing to perfect the appeal was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).