23 Cited authorities

Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd
58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1400 (Tex. 2015) Cited 254 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that attorneys are immune from civil liability to non-clients for conduct within scope of representation
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Riseborough
2014 IL 114271 (Ill. 2014) Cited 190 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding the defendant had forfeited its argument raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider
McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v. F.E. Appling Interests
991 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1999) Cited 263 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that trust beneficiaries may sue a lawyer for negligent misrepresentations made to the trust beneficiaries even though no attorney-client relationship exists
First Midwest Bank v. Stewart Title
218 Ill. 2d 326 (Ill. 2006) Cited 192 times
Concluding that a title insurer was not "in the business of supplying information" at the summary judgment stage, with the benefit of discovery and full briefing on the issue, including a particularly helpful amicus brief
No. Ill. Emer. Physicians v. Landau
216 Ill. 2d 294 (Ill. 2005) Cited 173 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that damages are speculative only if their existence is uncertain, not if the amount itself is uncertain
Massey v. Merrill Lynch Co., Inc.
464 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 159 times
Holding harm to a corporation that injures a shareholder only through a diminution in share price cannot amount to a "distinct and separate injury" because all shareholders are essentially harmed in the same manner
Pelham v. Griesheimer
92 Ill. 2d 13 (Ill. 1982) Cited 248 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that attorney hired to secure divorce owed no duty of care to children of client as third-party beneficiaries, where children claimed that attorney's negligence resulted in children not being able to benefit from divorce decree
Estate of Powell v. John C. Wunsch, P.C.
2014 IL 115997 (Ill. 2014) Cited 77 times
Labelling this the “intent to directly benefit test”
Barcelo v. Elliott
923 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. 1996) Cited 122 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a lawyer owes duty of care only to his client
Blankinship v. Brown
399 S.W.3d 303 (Tex. App. 2013) Cited 65 times
Explaining that only evidence that was before the trial court at the time it ruled on summary judgment motion would be considered and explaining that "we may not consider the trial testimony in our summary judgment analysis"

Acosta v. AEU Benefits, LLC et al

23 Cited authorities

Holding that attorneys are immune from civil liability to non-clients for conduct within scope of representation

Finding the defendant had forfeited its argument raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider

Holding that trust beneficiaries may sue a lawyer for negligent misrepresentations made to the trust beneficiaries even though no attorney-client relationship exists

Concluding that a title insurer was not "in the business of supplying information" at the summary judgment stage, with the benefit of discovery and full briefing on the issue, including a particularly helpful amicus brief

Recognizing that damages are speculative only if their existence is uncertain, not if the amount itself is uncertain

Holding harm to a corporation that injures a shareholder only through a diminution in share price cannot amount to a "distinct and separate injury" because all shareholders are essentially harmed in the same manner

Finding that attorney hired to secure divorce owed no duty of care to children of client as third-party beneficiaries, where children claimed that attorney's negligence resulted in children not being able to benefit from divorce decree

Labelling this the “intent to directly benefit test”

Holding that a lawyer owes duty of care only to his client

Explaining that only evidence that was before the trial court at the time it ruled on summary judgment motion would be considered and explaining that "we may not consider the trial testimony in our summary judgment analysis"