Watts v. Pettigrew

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he continuous representation doctrine does not apply here. . . . Accordingly, the malpractice claims . . . should have been dismissed as time-barred.”
• “[T]he continuous representation doctrine does not apply here. . . . Accordingly, the malpractice claims . . . should have been dismissed as time- barred.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).