McVaney v. BAIRD, HOLM, McEACHEN

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was not necessary for plaintiff to offer expert testimony regarding standard of care where defendant attorney had testified as to standard of care and conduct that breached standard of care
• indicating that no expert testimony was necessary, because defendant attorney’s own testimony established standard of care respecting statute of limitations
• holding that it was not necessary for plaintiff to offer expert testimony regarding standard of care where defendant attorney had testified as to standard of care and conduct that breached standard of care
• holding that it was not necessary for plaintiff to offer expert testimony regarding standard of care where defendant attorney had testified as to standard of care and conduct that breached standard of care
• it is necessary to establish that attorney-client relationship existed with respect to act or omission upon which legal malpractice claim based

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).