Weddell v. Nichols, Esq.
This text of Weddell v. Nichols, Esq. (Weddell v. Nichols, Esq.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
material facts which constitute the cause of action' for [transactional] attorney malpractice when he files or defends a lawsuit occasioned by that malpractice, and he 'sustains damage' by assuming the expense, inconvenience and risk of having to maintain such litigation, even if he wins it." (quoting NRS 11.207(1)), overruled on other grounds by Kopicko v. Young, 114 Nev. 1333, 971 P.2d 789 (1998).' For the same reasons, the district court properly dismissed appellant's breach of fiduciary duty claim, see Stalk v. Mushkin, 125 Nev. 21, 29-30, 199 P.3d 838, 844 (2009), and appellant's fraud claim, see NRS 11.190(3)(d). We therefore ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
97euldeuu tu J. Gibbons Pickering
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge Robert L. Eisenberg, Settlement Judge Day R. Williams, Attorney at Law Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd./Reno Washoe District Court Clerk
'We are not persuaded by appellant's suggestion that the course of action proposed in Kopicko v. Young, 114 Nev. 1333, 1337 n.3, 971 P.2d 789, 791 n.3 (1998), is unworkable so as to necessitate applying the litigation malpractice tolling rule in the transactional malpractice context.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Weddell v. Nichols, Esq., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weddell-v-nichols-esq-nev-2015.