Rantz v. Kaufman

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the 16 client must show the underlying case would have been successful but for counsel’s malpractice
• explaining that the “inquiry undertaken” in cases involving ineffective assistance and cases involving legal malpractice “is identical and focuses on what ordinary members of the legal profession would have done at the time the action was taken”
• explaining that the “inquiry undertaken” in cases involving ineffective assistance 17 and cases involving legal malpractice “is identical and focuses on what ordinary members of the legal profession would have done at the time the action was taken”
• noting that the doctrine of issue preclusion, sometimes referred to as collateral estoppel, provides that a court's final decision on an issue actually litigated and decided in a previous suit is conclusive of that issue in a subsequent suit
• refusing to adopt the “exoneration rule,” which would require criminal malpractice plaintiffs to obtain postconviction relief prior to filing suit
• refusing to adopt the “exoneration rule,” which would require criminal malpractice plaintiffs to obtain postconviction relief prior to filing suit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).