Opinion No. , 82-150

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on breach of fiduciary duty claim in absence of expert testimony
• affirming grant of summary judgment to defendant after plaintiff failed to disclose an expert
• ‘‘expert testimony also is a general requirement for establishing the ele- ment of causation in legal malpractice cases’’
• “[A] plaintiff alleging a breach of fiduciary duty must show that any damages sustained were proximately caused by the fiduciary’s breach of his or her fiduciary duty.”
• ‘‘the plaintiff must prove that, in the absence of the alleged breach of duty by her attorney, the plaintiff would have prevailed [in] the underlying cause of action and would have been entitled to judgment’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).