Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phillips v. Clancy, 733 P.2d 300.

54 citing documents.

Wallschlaeger v. the Hogle Firm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Wallschlaeger v. the Hogle Firm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Cannabis v. Fennemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cannabis v. Fennemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“[P]laintiff must prove that but for the attorney’s negligence, he would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the original suit.”).
Garrett v. Platt and Westby Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Garrett v. Platt and Westby Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
To state a claim for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege “the existence of a duty, breach of duty, that the defendant’s negligence was the actual and proximate cause of injury, and the ‘nature and extent’ of damages.” ¶ 12 (2004) () (emphasis added).
Wagner v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wagner v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Haberl v. McAllister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Haberl v. McAllister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Petrone Cabanas v. Hon. pineda/state 433 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Petrone Cabanas v. Hon. pineda/state 433 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-21 (App. 1986) (discussing the impropriety of a judge testifying how he would have ruled had a circumstance or factor been different); -70, ¶ 34 (2013) (discussing the impropriety of probing into the mental processes engaged in by a judge).6 B. Need for Reconstruction
Siu v. Cavanagh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Siu v. Cavanagh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In what is commonly referred to as the “case within the case” doctrine, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that “but for the attorney’s negligence, he would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the original suit.”
Goshkarian v. McGovern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Goshkarian v. McGovern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶8 “As in any negligence action, a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action must show the following basic elements: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.” (citation omitted).
Koch-Gulloty v. Pascuzzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Koch-Gulloty v. Pascuzzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶20 To prevail on a legal malpractice claim, the plaintiff must prove “duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.”
Westover v. Wees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Westover v. Wees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Causation, which is generally a fact question, see id., requires proof of negligence in the case-within-a-case; that is, “but for the attorney’s negligence, he would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the original suit.” ¶ 12, (
De Petris v. De Petris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
De Petris v. De Petris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Klee v. Lunn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Klee v. Lunn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
actual and proximate cause of any injury to [the Klees] and (2) that [the Klees] sustained any damages.” I. Causation ¶16 In what is sometimes called the “case within the case” doctrine, the plaintiff in a legal malpractice suit must “prove that but for the attorney’s negligence, he would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the original suit.” see also Glaze, 207 Ariz. at 29, ¶ 12, 83 P.3d at 29 (plaintiff must prove attorney’s negligence “was the actual and proximate cause of
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“As with all negligence claims, a plaintiff asserting legal malpractice must prove the existence of a duty, breach of duty, that the defendant’s negligence was the actual and proximate cause of injury, and the ‘nature and extent’ of damages.” , see also Molever, 152 Ariz. at 371 , 732 P.2d at 1109
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(jury in malpractice action decides fact question that would have existed in underlying lawsuit).
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
1971); –21, -06 (App. 1986) (holding that public policy militates against a judge testifying as an expert witness for one of the parties).
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Monthofer Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Allen 943 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Monthofer Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Allen 943 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Reed v. Mitchell & Timbanard, P.C. 903 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Reed v. Mitchell & Timbanard, P.C. 903 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 866 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 866 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993