Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe case brief summary
291 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1980)
CASE SYNOPSIS:
Appellant, attorney and law firm, sought review of the judgment of the Hennepin County District Court (Minnesota), which denied its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively for a new trial, in an action for legal malpractice brought by respondent clients.
OVERVIEW: Respondent clients were successful in their action for legal malpractice against appellants, attorney and law firm, as a jury found that appellant attorney was negligent, and as a result, respondents suffered damages. Appellants sought review of the trial court's denial of their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively, for a new trial.
HOLDING:
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of appellants' motions, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record that established that an attorney-client relationship existed, that appellant attorney acted negligently or in breach of contract, that such acts were the proximate cause of respondents' damages, and that but for appellant attorney's conduct respondents would have been successful in the prosecution of their medical malpractice claim.
ANALYSIS:
The court also held that appellants were not entitled to a new trial under Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01(5), because the trial court acted within its discretionary authority in ruling that respondents' damage award was not excessive. Appellants were not entitled to a reduction of that award for a hypothetical contingency fee.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which denied a motion by appellants, attorney and law firm, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively, for a new trial, holding that viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict in favor of respondent clients' action for legal malpractice.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
291 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1980)
CASE SYNOPSIS:
Appellant, attorney and law firm, sought review of the judgment of the Hennepin County District Court (Minnesota), which denied its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively for a new trial, in an action for legal malpractice brought by respondent clients.
OVERVIEW: Respondent clients were successful in their action for legal malpractice against appellants, attorney and law firm, as a jury found that appellant attorney was negligent, and as a result, respondents suffered damages. Appellants sought review of the trial court's denial of their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively, for a new trial.
HOLDING:
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of appellants' motions, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record that established that an attorney-client relationship existed, that appellant attorney acted negligently or in breach of contract, that such acts were the proximate cause of respondents' damages, and that but for appellant attorney's conduct respondents would have been successful in the prosecution of their medical malpractice claim.
ANALYSIS:
The court also held that appellants were not entitled to a new trial under Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01(5), because the trial court acted within its discretionary authority in ruling that respondents' damage award was not excessive. Appellants were not entitled to a reduction of that award for a hypothetical contingency fee.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which denied a motion by appellants, attorney and law firm, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively, for a new trial, holding that viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict in favor of respondent clients' action for legal malpractice.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment