Tidwell v. Hinton & Powell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tidwell v. Hinton & Powell

744 S.E.2d 87, 322 Ga. App. 486, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 1732, 2013 WL 2350443, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 453

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 30, 2013

DocketA11A2073

StatusPublished

This text of 744 S.E.2d 87 (Tidwell v. Hinton & Powell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tidwell v. Hinton & Powell, 744 S.E.2d 87, 322 Ga. App. 486, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 1732, 2013 WL 2350443, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 453 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, Presiding Judge.

In Tidwell v. Hinton & Powell,¹ we reversed the trial court’s partial grant of Hinton & Powell’s motion in limine to exclude expert witness testimony on the ground that the trial court erred as a matter of law by excluding the testimony without first evaluating whether such testimony would assist the jury on matters of the amount of damages that were the proximate cause of any legal malpractice if those matters were outside the ken of the normal juror.² In Hinton & Powell v. Tidwell,³ the Supreme Court of Georgia remanded our decision for consideration of its interim decision in Leibel v. Johnson4 which held that expert testimony is not admissible in a legal malpractice case to show causation because of the case-within-a-case structure of such an action.⁵ Accordingly, we vacate our opinion, and based on the reasoning set forth in Leibel, we affirm the partial grant of the motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of William Gainer as to the proximate cause, damage, and collectability of any ' award in the event that the attorney had not been negligent.

Judgment affirmed.

Ellington, C. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DOYLE, Presiding Judge.

In Tidwell v. Hinton & Powell,¹ we reversed the trial court’s partial grant of Hinton & Powell’s motion in limine to exclude expert witness testimony on the ground that the trial court erred as a matter of law by excluding the testimony without first evaluating whether such testimony would assist the jury on matters of the amount of damages that were the proximate cause of any legal malpractice if those matters were outside the ken of the normal juror.² In Hinton & Powell v. Tidwell,³ the Supreme Court of Georgia remanded our decision for consideration of its interim decision in Leibel v. Johnson4 which held that expert testimony is not admissible in a legal malpractice case to show causation because of the case-within-a-case structure of such an action.⁵ Accordingly, we vacate our opinion, and based on the reasoning set forth in Leibel, we affirm the partial grant of the motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of William Gainer as to the proximate cause, damage, and collectability of any ' award in the event that the attorney had not been negligent.

Judgment affirmed.

Ellington, C. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

744 S.E.2d 87, 322 Ga. App. 486, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 1732, 2013 WL 2350443, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tidwell-v-hinton-powell-gactapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack