Preblich v. Zorea

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where attorney “had or should have had knowledge of [client’s] potential malpractice action against [former attorney]” before statute of limitations ran, attorney’s knowledge was imputed to client for purposes of discovery rule
• affirming grant of summary judgment because six-year statute of limitations was triggered when client had sufficient information to know former attorney might have engaged in malpractice
• client charged with constructive discovery when the client's new attorney should have discovered the client's cause of action against the client’s previous attorney
• client charged with constructive discovery when the client’s new attorney should have discovered the client’s cause of action against the client’s previous attorney
• \ 'Ordinarily an issue which was not raised in the trial court will not be treated on appeal.'\ (quoting Padgeft v. Theus, 484 P.2d 697, 700 (Alaska 1971))
• applying statute of limitations for contract claims to malpractice case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).