14 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peterson v. Issenhuthgreen2 sentences2020Slota’s arguments may have some support in the language of SDCL 15-2-14.2, which applies to claims against licensed attorneys for “malpractice, error, mistake, or omission.” The statute does not define these terms, nor does it specifically reference breaches of a fiduciary duty or other intentional conduct outside the purview of “malpractice, error, mistake, or omission.” [¶25.] A legal malpractice claim is premised on the duty of care existing in an attorney-client relationship. 9 Peterson v. Issenhuth, 2014 S.D. 1 , ¶ 17, 842 N.W.2d 351, 355 . 2019We believe it is (continued . . .) -10- #28524 [¶27.] In order to prevail in a legal malpractice claim, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty; (2) the attorney, either by an act or failure to act, breached that duty; (3) the attorney’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to the client; and (4) the client sustained actual damage.” Peterson v. Issenhuth, 2014 S.D. 1 , ¶ 17, 842 N.W.2d, 351, 355 (quoting Chem-Age Indus., Inc. v. Glover, 2002 S.D. 122 , ¶ 24, 652 N.W.2d 756, 767 ). | 1 | 4 |
Zhi Gang Zhang v. Rasmusgreen2 sentences2023Proof of causation for legal malpractice. [¶12.] “In order to prevail in a legal malpractice claim, ‘a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of an attorney–client relationship giving rise to a duty; (2) the attorney, either by an act or failure to act, breached that duty; (3) the attorney’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to the client; and (4) the client sustained actual damage.’” Zhi Gang Zhang v. Rasmus, 2019 S.D. 46, ¶ 27 , 932 N.W.2d 153, 162 (citation omitted). “[T]he plaintiff can recover against the defendant-attorney only when it can be shown that the injury would not have 2023Proof of causation for legal malpractice. [¶12.] “In order to prevail in a legal malpractice claim, ‘a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of an attorney–client relationship giving rise to a duty; (2) the attorney, either by an act or failure to act, breached that duty; (3) the attorney’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to the client; and (4) the client sustained actual damage.’” Zhi Gang Zhang v. Rasmus, 2019 S.D. 46, ¶ 27 , 932 N.W.2d 153, 162 (citation omitted). “[T]he plaintiff can recover against the defendant-attorney only when it can be shown that the injury would not have | 1 | 3 |
Haberer v. Ricegreen2 sentences2023Proof of causation for legal malpractice. [¶12.] “In order to prevail in a legal malpractice claim, ‘a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of an attorney–client relationship giving rise to a duty; (2) the attorney, either by an act or failure to act, breached that duty; (3) the attorney’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to the client; and (4) the client sustained actual damage.’” Zhi Gang Zhang v. Rasmus, 2019 S.D. 46, ¶ 27 , 932 N.W.2d 153, 162 (citation omitted). “[T]he plaintiff can recover against the defendant-attorney only when it can be shown that the injury would not have 2003Id. at 285 . | 1 | 2 |
Kurylas, Inc. v. Bradskygreen2 sentences1998See Smith v. Stacy, 198 W.Va. 498 , 482 S.E.2d 115, 121 (1996) (holding: “[T]he limitations period for a legal malpractice claim is not tolled by the continuous representation rule where an attorney’s subsequent role is only tangentially related to legal representation the attorney provided in the matter in which he was allegedly negligent”). [¶ 17.] In Kurylas, we were faced with a situation in which Kurylas presented records from the defendant’s law firm indicating several instances of contact between Kurylas and his attorney after the allegedly negligent incident had occurred. 452 N.W.2d at 1998See Smith v. Stacy, 198 W.Va. 498 , 482 S.E.2d 115, 121 (1996) (holding: "[T]he limitations period for a legal malpractice claim is not tolled by the continuous representation rule where an attorney's subsequent role is only tangentially related to legal representation the attorney provided in the matter in which he was allegedly negligent"). [¶ 17.] In Kurylas, we were faced with a situation in which Kurylas presented records from the defendant's law firm indicating several instances of contact between Kurylas *461 and his attorney after the allegedly negligent incident had occurred. 452 N.W. | 1 | 2 |
Western Fiberglass, Inc. v. Kirton, McConkie & Bushnellgreen1 sentence2005Thomas, J.D., Annotation, Legal Malpractice: Negligence or Fault of Client as Defense, 10 A.L.R.5th 828 (1993-2004) (noting in a legal malpractice claim the “usual defenses are applicable, including the defense that the client contributed to or was solely responsible for his or her own harm”); Shaw v. State of Alaska, Dep’t. of Admin., 861 P.2d 566 (Alaska 1993) (recognizing contributory negligence and assumption of the risk as traditional defenses to legal malpractice claim); Western Fiberglass, Inc. v. Kirton, McConkie and Bushnell, 789 P.2d 34, 36 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (affirming judgment that | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Mooregreen2 sentences2002Ford v. Moore, 1996 SD 112, ¶ 7 , 552 N.W.2d 850, 852 (citation omitted). 2002Ford v. Moore, 1996 SD 112, ¶ 7 , 552 N.W.2d 850, 852 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stacygreen2 sentences1998See Smith v. Stacy, 198 W.Va. 498 , 482 S.E.2d 115, 121 (1996) (holding: “[T]he limitations period for a legal malpractice claim is not tolled by the continuous representation rule where an attorney’s subsequent role is only tangentially related to legal representation the attorney provided in the matter in which he was allegedly negligent”). [¶ 17.] In Kurylas, we were faced with a situation in which Kurylas presented records from the defendant’s law firm indicating several instances of contact between Kurylas and his attorney after the allegedly negligent incident had occurred. 452 N.W.2d at 1998See Smith v. Stacy, 198 W.Va. 498 , 482 S.E.2d 115, 121 (1996) (holding: “[T]he limitations period for a legal malpractice claim is not tolled by the continuous representation rule where an attorney’s subsequent role is only tangentially related to legal representation the attorney provided in the matter in which he was allegedly negligent”). [¶ 17.] In Kurylas, we were faced with a situation in which Kurylas presented records from the defendant’s law firm indicating several instances of contact between Kurylas and his attorney after the allegedly negligent incident had occurred. 452 N.W.2d at | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chem-Age Industries, Inc. v. Glover
green
2 sentences2019The undisputed material facts contained in the record establish, however, that he is unable to make this predicate showing. 3 [¶27.] In order to prevail in a legal malpractice claim, "a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty; (2) the attorney, either by an act or failure to act, breached that duty; (3) the attorney's breach of duty proximately caused injury to the client; and (4) the client sustained actual damage." Peterson v. Issenhuth , 2014 S.D. 1 , ¶ 17, 842 N.W.2d 351 , 355 (quoting Chem-Age Indus., Inc. v. Glover , 2002 S.D. 122 2019We believe it is (continued . . .) -10- #28524 [¶27.] In order to prevail in a legal malpractice claim, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty; (2) the attorney, either by an act or failure to act, breached that duty; (3) the attorney’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to the client; and (4) the client sustained actual damage.” Peterson v. Issenhuth, 2014 S.D. 1 , ¶ 17, 842 N.W.2d, 351, 355 (quoting Chem-Age Indus., Inc. v. Glover, 2002 S.D. 122 , ¶ 24, 652 N.W.2d 756, 767 ). | 4 | 2014–2019 |
Zhang v. Rasmus
green
2 sentences2023Proof of causation for legal malpractice. [¶12.] “In order to prevail in a legal malpractice claim, ‘a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of an attorney–client relationship giving rise to a duty; (2) the attorney, either by an act or failure to act, breached that duty; (3) the attorney’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to the client; and (4) the client sustained actual damage.’” Zhi Gang Zhang v. Rasmus, 2019 S.D. 46, ¶ 27 , 932 N.W.2d 153, 162 (citation omitted). “[T]he plaintiff can recover against the defendant-attorney only when it can be shown that the injury would not have 2020Peterson, 2014 S.D. 1 , ¶ 17, 842 N.W.2d at 355 . -12- #28496 ordinarily possessed by an attorney.” Zhi Gang Zhang v. Rasmus, 2019 S.D. 46, ¶ 28 , 932 N.W.2d 153, 162 . | 2 | 2020–2023 |
Weiss v. Van Norman
green
2 sentences2019In addition, "the plaintiff can recover against the defendant-attorney only when it can be shown that the injury would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the lawyer." Hamilton , 2014 S.D. 76 , ¶ 39, 855 N.W.2d at 867 (quoting Weiss v. Van Norman , 1997 S.D. 40 , ¶ 12, 562 N.W.2d 113 , 116 ). 2019In addition, “the plaintiff can recover against the defendant-attorney only when it can be shown that the injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the negligence of the lawyer.” Hamilton, 2014 S.D. 76 , ¶ 39, 855 N.W.2d at 867 (quoting Weiss v. Van Norman, 1997 S.D. 40 , ¶ 12, 562 N.W.2d 113, 116 ). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Hamilton v. Sommers
green
2 sentences2019In addition, "the plaintiff can recover against the defendant-attorney only when it can be shown that the injury would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the lawyer." Hamilton , 2014 S.D. 76 , ¶ 39, 855 N.W.2d at 867 (quoting Weiss v. Van Norman , 1997 S.D. 40 , ¶ 12, 562 N.W.2d 113 , 116 ). 2019In addition, “the plaintiff can recover against the defendant-attorney only when it can be shown that the injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the negligence of the lawyer.” Hamilton, 2014 S.D. 76 , ¶ 39, 855 N.W.2d at 867 (quoting Weiss v. Van Norman, 1997 S.D. 40 , ¶ 12, 562 N.W.2d 113, 116 ). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Morgan v. Baldwin
green
1 sentence2020Because of our disposition on the statute of repose, we need not reach the question of whether the allegations of fraud were sufficient. [¶15.] This Court has previously discussed the applicability of occurrence- based statutory time periods for professional malpractice actions and other statutes of limitations for a cause of action arises out of a professional relationship. 5 For instance, Morgan v. Baldwin considered the applicability of a time period to commence a legal malpractice claim under SDCL 15-2-14.2, and the six-year contract statute of limitations in SDCL 15-2-13(1), in a partners | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Shaw v. State, Department of Administration
green
1 sentence2005Thomas, J.D., Annotation, Legal Malpractice: Negligence or Fault of Client as Defense, 10 A.L.R.5th 828 (1993-2004) (noting in a legal malpractice claim the “usual defenses are applicable, including the defense that the client contributed to or was solely responsible for his or her own harm”); Shaw v. State of Alaska, Dep’t. of Admin., 861 P.2d 566 (Alaska 1993) (recognizing contributory negligence and assumption of the risk as traditional defenses to legal malpractice claim); Western Fiberglass, Inc. v. Kirton, McConkie and Bushnell, 789 P.2d 34, 36 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (affirming judgment that | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Nika v. Danz
green
2 sentences1994In Nika v. Danz, 199 Ill.App.3d 296 , 145 Ill.Dec. 255 , 556 N.E.2d 873 (Ill.App.1990), the jury was given three sets of instructions: one for the legal malpractice claim, a second concerning the hypothetical, underlying action and a third set covering both cases. 1994In Nika v. Danz, 199 Ill.App.3d 296 , 145 Ill.Dec. 255 , 556 N.E.2d 873 (Ill.App.1990), the jury was given three sets of instructions: one for the legal malpractice claim, a second concerning the hypothetical, underlying action and a third set covering both cases. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Pickens, Barnes & Abernathy v. Heasley
green
2 sentences1983The Iowa Supreme Court recently discussed this issue in Pickens, Barnes & Abernathy v. Heasley, supra, a legal malpractice action. 1983The Iowa Supreme Court recently discussed this issue in Pickens, Barnes & Abernathy v. Heasley, supra , a legal malpractice action. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.