Hunter v. James Leahy & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that \needless\ litigation can be avoided by a stay of that action pending the exhaustion of the related appeals
• stating that an injured person need not know the full extent of an injury before there is a cognizable event
• holding that a claim for legal malpractice accrued, and the statute of limitations began to run, at the time of the underlying judgment even though the claim could fail if the judgment were reversed on appeal
• holding “the cognizable event does not require actual discovery of the existence of a legal malpractice claim”
• noting that an injured person need not be aware of the full extent of his injury for the statute of limitations to begin to run
• in legal malpractice action, cognizable event occurred when trial court invalidated plaintiff's antenuptial agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).