Rice v. Perl

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a reviewing court looks to diligence and motive when determining whether a continuance should have been allowed
• holding that plaintiff was diligent in seeking discovery when defendants moved for summary judgment roughly two weeks after filing of complaint, whereupon plaintiff moved for a continuance
• holding attorney breached fiduciary duty to client where attorney failed to disclose business relationship with claims adjuster
• holding attorney breached fiduciary duty when client placed in position that might taint settlement transaction
• firm deemed to have forfeited attorney fees for failing to disclose to client-plaintiff its ongoing relationship with defendant’s claims adjuster who was negotiating with plaintiff
• in deciding whether to grant continuance to permit further discovery, court considers party’s diligence in seeking discovery prior to motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).