Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting assertion that a jury could determine without expert testimony whether, but for the content of the attorney’s communication, the underlying litigation would not have occurred
• “But-for causation cannot be established without the assistance of an expert witness ‘when the causal relation issue is not one within the common knowledge of laymen.’”
• “[M]atters outside the scope of review are not properly considered by appellate courts.”
• “[M]atters outside the scope of review are not properly considered by appellate courts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).