Cited by

(party asserting negligence must show duty, breach, causation, and damages).

“But the[ ] statutes of limitation do not purport to define when a cause of action ‘accrues.’” ¶ 9 (2004).

See, (recognizing strict liability and negligence as causes of action to recover damages); (requiring damages to sustain negligence claim); (requiring damages as element in attorney-malpractice claim).

“As with all negligence claims, a plaintiff asserting legal malpractice [by reason of negligence] must prove the existence of a duty, breach of duty, that the defendant’s negligence was the actual and proximate cause of the injury, and the ‘nature and extent’ of damages.” ¶ 12 (2004).

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).

decision) (review 1 “[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.” ¶ 12 (2004) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

¶65 “[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.” ¶ 12 (2004).

See, ¶ 25 (2004) (recognizing that an element of the cause of action for legal malpractice stemming from criminal litigation is that the conviction has been set aside); (noting the essential elements of malicious prosecution include a criminal prosecution that termin

See Glaze v. Larsen , , 29, ¶ 12, , 29 (2004) (holding that elements of malpractice include proximate causation, actual causation, and damages).

However, “a party [in the civil context] generally cannot obtain post-judgment relief because of the inexcusable neglect of counsel.” ¶ 20

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, (

“In the civil context, a party generally cannot obtain post-judgment relief because of the inexcusable neglect of counsel.” ¶ 20 (2004).

¶ 15, (stating party asserting legal malpractice must prove defendant’s negligence caused the injury; actual injury/damage caused by lawyer’s negligence is critical to claim of legal malpractice); Lane Title & (stating a clai

of the original suit.” ¶ 12, (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Cecala v. Newman, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1136-37 4 DE PETRIS et al. v. ALTFELD et al. Decision of the Court (D. Ariz. 2007).

¶ 12, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).