California Supreme Court· 1/20/1975

Smith v. Lewis

Citations

530 P.2d 589
13 Cal. 3d 349
118 Cal. Rptr. 621
78 A.L.R. 3d 231
1975 Cal. LEXIS 174

How courts have described this case

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

“Respondent cannot be held to be contributively negligent because she relied upon her attorney’s advice.”
attorney is expected to discover rules of law which, although not commonly known, may readily be found by standard research techñiques
otherwise overruled, In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 851, 126 Cal.Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 561 [1976]
legal malpractice liability where attor- ney’s advice did not withstand even “minimal research into either hornbook or case law”
otherwise overruled, In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 851, 126 Cal.Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 561 [1976]
legal malpractice liability where attorney’s advice did not withstand even “minimal research into either hornbook or case law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mosk, Clark

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

119 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Smith v. Lewis

30 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.