Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mashaney v. Board of Indigents' Defense Servicesgreen2 sentences2022In Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond, 239 Kan. 83, 87 , 716 P.2d 575 (1986), a case concerning a legal malpractice claim, our Supreme Court explained that "a cause of action accrues, so as to start the running of the statute of limitations, as soon as the right to maintain a legal action arises. . . . [A]n action accrues [when] the plaintiff could first have filed and prosecuted his action to a successful conclusion." More recently, our Supreme Court again adhered to the rule pronounced in Pancake House in another legal malpractice claim and stated that "'[a] cause of action accrues when the righ 2022In Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond, 239 Kan. 83, 87 , 716 P.2d 575 (1986), a case concerning a legal malpractice claim, our Supreme Court explained that "a cause of action accrues, so as to start the running of the statute of limitations, as soon as the right to maintain a legal action arises. . . . [A]n action accrues [when] the plaintiff could first have filed and prosecuted his action to a successful conclusion." More recently, our Supreme Court again adhered to the rule pronounced in Pancake House in another legal malpractice claim and stated that "'[a] cause of action accrues when the righ | 5 | 8 |
Garcia v. Ballgreen2 sentences2020Tracy objects to the mootness suggestion, arguing: (1) if this court does not correct and vacate the panel's decision, any future sentencing court might feel obligated to follow the panel's decision and again classify the 1974 Colorado burglary conviction as a person felony; (2) without a favorable outcome from this court, under Garcia v. Ball, 303 Kan. 560, 573 , 363 P.3d 399 (2015), Tracy could not pursue a legal malpractice claim against his original sentencing attorney for not challenging the allegedly improper classification; and (3) the issue relating to classification is capable of repe 2020Tracy objects to the mootness suggestion, arguing: (1) if this court does not correct and vacate the panel's decision, any future sentencing court might feel obligated to follow the panel's decision and again classify the 1974 Colorado burglary conviction as a person felony; (2) without a favorable outcome from this court, under Garcia v. Ball, 303 Kan. 560, 573 , 363 P.3d 399 (2015), Tracy could not pursue a legal malpractice claim against his original sentencing attorney for not challenging the allegedly improper classification; and (3) the issue relating to classification is capable of repe | 2 | 6 |
Canaan v. Barteegreen2 sentences2022See Canaan, 276 Kan. 116 , Syl. ¶ 1 (setting forth elements of legal malpractice claim); Kahn v. Morse & Mowbray, 121 Nev. 464, 476 , 117 P.3d 227 (2005) (holding collateral estoppel did not bar client from suing attorney after settling prior case because legal malpractice claim was not litigated in prior case). 2013Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116, 120 , 72 P.3d 911 , cert. denied 540 U.S. 1090 (2003). | 2 | 3 |
Power Control Devices, Inc. v. Lernergreen2 sentences2026Before trial, the LeTourneaus designated Dickerson as their sole expert witness to provide both factual testimony on his experience with the Defendants in the underlying case, as well as "expert testimony and opinions on the operative standard of care of personal injury lawyers in the State of Kansas, Defendants' failure to adhere and/or meet the same, the damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a proximate result of Defendants' breach of the standard of care, and the causal connection between Defendants' acts and omissions and Plaintiffs' damages." Defendants filed a pretrial motion in limine, bas 2026App. 2d 690 , 437 P.3d 66 (2019), arguing that Dickerson was not competent to offer opinions about engineering, medical care, life-care planning, and economic loss to prove the elements of the underlying "'case within a case'" to support the LeTourneaus' legal malpractice claim. | 1 | 1 |
Cira v. Dillingergreen1 sentence2015And, in Cira v. Dillinger, 903 So. 2d 367, 371 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond Ex Rel. Redmond
green
2 sentences2022In Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond, 239 Kan. 83, 87 , 716 P.2d 575 (1986), a case concerning a legal malpractice claim, our Supreme Court explained that "a cause of action accrues, so as to start the running of the statute of limitations, as soon as the right to maintain a legal action arises. . . . [A]n action accrues [when] the plaintiff could first have filed and prosecuted his action to a successful conclusion." More recently, our Supreme Court again adhered to the rule pronounced in Pancake House in another legal malpractice claim and stated that "'[a] cause of action accrues when the righ 2022In Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond, 239 Kan. 83, 87 , 716 P.2d 575 (1986), a case concerning a legal malpractice claim, our Supreme Court explained that "a cause of action accrues, so as to start the running of the statute of limitations, as soon as the right to maintain a legal action arises. . . . [A]n action accrues [when] the plaintiff could first have filed and prosecuted his action to a successful conclusion." More recently, our Supreme Court again adhered to the rule pronounced in Pancake House in another legal malpractice claim and stated that "'[a] cause of action accrues when the righ | 5 | 1990–2022 |
Robert M. Levine v. Richard Kling
green
2 sentences2015According to the Levine panel, a criminal defendant bringing a legal malpractice claim must prove he or she is factually innocent to establish the incompetent trial lawyer breached a protected duty and caused actionable harm. 123 F.3d at 582-83 . 2013According to the Levine panel, a criminal defendant bringing a legal malpractice claim must prove he or she is factually innocent to establish the incompetent trial lawyer breached a protected duty and caused actionable harm. 123 F.3d at 582-83 . | 2 | 2013–2015 |
Bergstrom v. Noah
green
2 sentences2015In Canaan , we identified the elements of a legal malpractice claim: “ ‘(1) the duty of the attorney to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a causal connection between the breach of duty and the resulting injury, and (4) actual loss or damage.’ Bergstrom v. Noah, 266 Kan. 847, 874 , 974 P.2d 531 (1999). 2015In Canaan , we identified the elements of a legal malpractice claim: “ ‘(1) the duty of the attorney to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a causal connection between the breach of duty and the resulting injury, and (4) actual loss or damage.’ Bergstrom v. Noah, 266 Kan. 847, 874 , 974 P.2d 531 (1999). | 2 | 2013–2015 |
Mashaney v. Board of Indigents' Defense Services
green
2 sentences2015The panel majority thus held that a criminal defendant must prove actual innocence in order to successfully bring a legal malpractice claim. 49 Kan. 2015Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 49 Kan. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland
green
2 sentences2013Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116, 120 , 72 P.3d 911 , cert. denied 540 U.S. 1090 (2003). 2007Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116, 120 , 72 P.3d 911 , cert. denied 540 U.S. 1090 (2003). | 2 | 2007–2013 |
Holder v. Kansas Steel Built, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022In Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond, 239 Kan. 83, 87 , 716 P.2d 575 (1986), a case concerning a legal malpractice claim, our Supreme Court explained that "a cause of action accrues, so as to start the running of the statute of limitations, as soon as the right to maintain a legal action arises. . . . [A]n action accrues [when] the plaintiff could first have filed and prosecuted his action to a successful conclusion." More recently, our Supreme Court again adhered to the rule pronounced in Pancake House in another legal malpractice claim and stated that "'[a] cause of action accrues when the righ 2022In Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond, 239 Kan. 83, 87 , 716 P.2d 575 (1986), a case concerning a legal malpractice claim, our Supreme Court explained that "a cause of action accrues, so as to start the running of the statute of limitations, as soon as the right to maintain a legal action arises. . . . [A]n action accrues [when] the plaintiff could first have filed and prosecuted his action to a successful conclusion." More recently, our Supreme Court again adhered to the rule pronounced in Pancake House in another legal malpractice claim and stated that "'[a] cause of action accrues when the righ | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Singh v. Krueger
green
1 sentence2022Singh v. Krueger, 39 Kan. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Kahn v. Morse & Mowbray
green
2 sentences2022See Canaan, 276 Kan. 116 , Syl. ¶ 1 (setting forth elements of legal malpractice claim); Kahn v. Morse & Mowbray, 121 Nev. 464, 476 , 117 P.3d 227 (2005) (holding collateral estoppel did not bar client from suing attorney after settling prior case because legal malpractice claim was not litigated in prior case). 2022See Canaan, 276 Kan. 116 , Syl. ¶ 1 (setting forth elements of legal malpractice claim); Kahn v. Morse & Mowbray, 121 Nev. 464, 476 , 117 P.3d 227 (2005) (holding collateral estoppel did not bar client from suing attorney after settling prior case because legal malpractice claim was not litigated in prior case). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Zimmerman v. Brown
green
2 sentences2021A legal malpractice claim was at issue in Zimmerman v. Brown, 49 Kan. 2021App. 2d 143 , 306 P.3d 306 (2013). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
O'GRADY v. Potts
green
2 sentences2020This court has long designated bringing a suit for negligence to be a "right." See e.g., Apodaca v. Willmore, 306 Kan. 103 , 392 P.3d 529 (2017); Vorhees v. Baltazar, 283 Kan. 389 , 153 P.3d 1227 (2007); O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644 , 396 P.2d 285 (1964); Vaughn v. Kansas City N.W.R. 2020This court has long designated bringing a suit for negligence to be a "right." See e.g., Apodaca v. Willmore, 306 Kan. 103 , 392 P.3d 529 (2017); Vorhees v. Baltazar, 283 Kan. 389 , 153 P.3d 1227 (2007); O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644 , 396 P.2d 285 (1964); Vaughn v. Kansas City N.W.R. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Vorhees v. Baltazar
green
2 sentences2020This court has long designated bringing a suit for negligence to be a "right." See e.g., Apodaca v. Willmore, 306 Kan. 103 , 392 P.3d 529 (2017); Vorhees v. Baltazar, 283 Kan. 389 , 153 P.3d 1227 (2007); O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644 , 396 P.2d 285 (1964); Vaughn v. Kansas City N.W.R. 2020This court has long designated bringing a suit for negligence to be a "right." See e.g., Apodaca v. Willmore, 306 Kan. 103 , 392 P.3d 529 (2017); Vorhees v. Baltazar, 283 Kan. 389 , 153 P.3d 1227 (2007); O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644 , 396 P.2d 285 (1964); Vaughn v. Kansas City N.W.R. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Rogers v. Cape May County Office
green
2 sentences2015Defender, 208 N.J. 414, 425 , 31 A. 3d 934 (2011), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that exoneration sufficient to support a legal malpractice claim required the ultimate dismissal of the underlying criminal case against the defendant with prejudice; mere reversal of die defendant’s conviction was not enough. 2015Defender, 208 N.J. 414, 425 , 31 A. 3d 934 (2011), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that exoneration sufficient to support a legal malpractice claim required the ultimate dismissal of the underlying criminal case against the defendant with prejudice; mere reversal of die defendant’s conviction was not enough. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Chavez v. Saums
green
2 sentences2013App. 2d 564, 565 , 571 P.2d 62 [1977]). 2013We observed that the damage rule was followed in other tort cases and had been used in at least one other case involving a legal malpractice claim. 239 Kan. at 87 -88 (citing Chavez, Executrix v. Saums, 1 Kan. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Mason v. Gerin Corp.
green
2 sentences2008Relying on Mason v. Gerin Corp., 231 Kan. 718, 721 , 647 P.2d 1340 (1982), the trial court determined that even if the legal malpractice claim was viewed as an injury to the personal estate of the decedent, the decedent’s personal representative could only recover damages that accrued between the date of injuiy and the *290 death of the decedent. 2008Relying on Mason v. Gerin Corp., 231 Kan. 718, 721 , 647 P.2d 1340 (1982), the trial court determined that even if the legal malpractice claim was viewed as an injury to the personal estate of the decedent, the decedent’s personal representative could only recover damages that accrued between the date of injuiy and the *290 death of the decedent. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Sizemore v. Swift
green
1 sentence2008App. 352 , 719 P.2d 500 (1986), in support of her argument that the legal malpractice claim survived Anton’s death. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jones v. Siesennop
green
2 sentences2008App. 3d 1037 , 371 N.E.2d 892 (1977), in support of her argument that the legal malpractice claim survived Anton’s death as injury to her personal estate. 2008Moreover, the Illinois *296 Court of Appeals recognized that a legal malpractice claim must have accrued in the decedent’s lifetime to survive the decedent’s death. 55 Ill. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Korytkowski v. City of Ottawa
green
2 sentences2007Korytkowski v. City of Ot tawa, 283 Kan. 122, 128 , 152 P.3d 53 (2007). *640 In Kansas, in order to prevail on a legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) the duty of the attorney to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the breach of duty and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage. 2007Korytkowski v. City of Ot tawa, 283 Kan. 122, 128 , 152 P.3d 53 (2007). *640 In Kansas, in order to prevail on a legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) the duty of the attorney to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the breach of duty and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bowman v. Doherty
green
2 sentences2003App. 2d 797 , 972 P.2d 786 (1998), and Bowman v. Doherty, 235 Kan. 870 , 686 P.2d 112 (1984). 2003App. 2d 797 , 972 P.2d 786 (1998), and Bowman v. Doherty, 235 Kan. 870 , 686 P.2d 112 (1984). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Rice v. Barker & Bunch, P.C.
neutral
2 sentences2003Only two Kansas cases have dealt with a legal malpractice claim arising out of criminal proceedings: Rice v. Barker & Bunch, P.C., 25 Kan. 2003App. 2d 797 , 972 P.2d 786 (1998), and Bowman v. Doherty, 235 Kan. 870 , 686 P.2d 112 (1984). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Phillips v. Carson
green
2 sentences1993To recover on a legal malpractice claim, the plaintiff/client must establish “the existence of an attorney-client relationship giving rise, to a duty; that the attorney breached that duty by act or *845 omission; that the attorney’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to the client; and that the client sustained actual damages.” Phillips v. Carson, 240 Kan. 462, 476 , 731 P.2d 820 (1987). 1993To recover on a legal malpractice claim, the plaintiff/client must establish “the existence of an attorney-client relationship giving rise, to a duty; that the attorney breached that duty by act or *845 omission; that the attorney’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to the client; and that the client sustained actual damages.” Phillips v. Carson, 240 Kan. 462, 476 , 731 P.2d 820 (1987). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.