Rosby Corp. v. Townsend, Yosha, Cline & Price

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 [Pica- dilly] court made no indication that its holding was limited” to instances where the assignee would make use of a role reversal
• discussing the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PL-1959 | June 10, 2020 Page 12 of 24 bright-line rule drawn by our supreme court holding that “legal malpractice claims are not assignable”
• where assignee was a creditor in bankruptcy, and the court implied that had the claim been “assigned to a successor corporation, which was a direct continuation of its predecessor,” the assignment would have been allowed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).