Smith v. Haden
| Decision Date | 21 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | 95-7033,Nos. 95-7014,s. 95-7014 |
| Citation | 69 F.3d 606 |
| Parties | Linda A. SMITH, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Mabel D. HADEN, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. District of Columbia Circuit |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge; HENDERSON and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
This case was heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments by counsel. Upon consideration thereof, it is
Ordered that the judgment from which this appeal has been taken be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum opinion of December 23, 1994. See Smith v. Haden, 872 F.Supp. 1040 (D.D.C.1994). The cross-appeal is therefore moot.
The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 41(a)(1).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kituskie v. Corbman
...33 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 (1994), rev. denied,1994 Cal. LEXIS 6078 (Cal. Nov. 16.1994); Smith v. Haden, 868 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C.1994), aff'd, 69 F.3d 606 (D.C.Cir.1995); Teodorescu v. Bushnell, Gage, Reizen & Byington, 201 Mich.App. 260, 506 N.W.2d 275 (1993), appeal denied, 445 Mich. 936, 521 N.W.2d......
-
Yeager v. Nat'l Pub. Radio
...of an attorneyclient relationship in order to sustain a legal malpractice suit under District of Columbia tort law), aff'd, 69 F.3d 606 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Accordingly, because there was never an relationship between plaintiff and defendants, “he cannot sustain a claim for legal malpractice u......
-
Clary v. Lite Machines Corp.
...the passage of time itself can affect collectibility of the underlying case. Smith v. Haden, 868 F.Supp. 1, 2 (D.C.1994), aff'd by 69 F.3d 606 (D.C.Cir.1995). We agree that it makes more sense to place the burden of proof upon the malpractice defendant to show that the judgment would not ha......
-
3e Mobile, LLC v. Global Cellular, Inc.
...motion in a bench trial or for the Court to rule on such a motion." Smith v. Haden, 872 F. Supp. 1040, 1043 (D.D.C. 1994), aff'd, 69 F.3d 606 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see also 9B Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2523 (3d ed.) ("The motions described in Federal Rule 50 are availab......