Rushing v. Bosse

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that absolute immunity would be awarded for conduct involving a violation of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060(d) (the equivalent of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 because such conduct is related to the judicial proceedings)
• stating that child to be adopted was not only intended third party beneficiary of contract but defendants were attorneys for adoptive parents, \who evidently intended to benefit child by adopting her\
• child to be adopted was an intended third party beneficiary of contract for representation between attorney who institutes private adoption and his client
• \We do not read Oberon as creating an exception to the privity requirement limited solely to the area of will drafting.\
• “In order to plead a cause of action for civil conspiracy there must be an underlying independent wrong or tort.”
• attorney is liable even in the absence of privity, to intended third party beneficiaries of attorney's actions when it is clear the client intended to benefit the third party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).