Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the jury could “properly evaluate” attorney’s allegedly negligent conduct without expert testimony and noting that the issue of causation was a “separate question”
• stating that both parties offered expert testimony on the issue of whether the defendant attorney impermissibly engaged in dual representation
• noting that the only party found negligent was the attorney Ranta, not the Hills, who received indemnity as the agents of Okay
• approving the district court’s additional factual findings because they “merely add[ed] necessary, consistent details to the findings of the jury”
• analogizing the duty of an attorney in representing a client to the duty of reasonable care in an ordinary negligence case
• awarding fees because defendant’s actions forced plaintiffs into litigation with third-party creditors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).