§Why CasetextPricing

Seed Company Limited et al v. Westerman et al

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND CAUSATION GROUNDS

26 Cited authorities

  1. Budd v. Nixen

    6 Cal.3d 195 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 375 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the limitations period for an attorney malpractice claim does not begin to run until the plaintiff has suffered appreciable and actual harm

  2. Harris v. F.A.A

    353 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2004)   Cited 90 times
    Affirming dismissal of APA claim because plaintiffs failed to initiate action within six-year limitations period

  3. Knight v. Furlow

    553 A.2d 1232 (D.C. 1989)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that "attorney's fees and costs expended as a result of an attorney's alleged malpractice constitute legally-cognizable damages for purposes of stating a claim for such malpractice"

  4. District of Columbia v. Freeman

    477 A.2d 713 (D.C. 1984)   Cited 76 times
    Explaining that such a question only "becomes one of law ... when the evidence ... will not support a rational finding of proximate cause."

  5. Cantu v. St. Paul Companies

    401 Mass. 53 (Mass. 1987)   Cited 61 times
    Finding legal malpractice action accrued when doctor learned his attorneys failed to notify his excess insurance carrier of a potential claim, not when he replaced his attorneys and hired different ones

  6. Wagner v. Sellinger

    847 A.2d 1151 (D.C. 2004)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that the plaintiff could not "articulate any injury that could yield ascertainable damages"

  7. Majeska v. D.C

    812 A.2d 948 (D.C. 2002)   Cited 34 times
    Holding defendant was not liable for harm actually caused "where the chain of events leading to the injury appears `highly extraordinary in retrospect'"

  8. Wettanen v. Cowper

    749 P.2d 362 (Alaska 1988)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice may begin to run before the plaintiff knows the full extent of his damages

  9. Bradley v. Nat'l Ass'n of Securities Dealers

    433 F.3d 846 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 26 times
    Stating District of Columbia does not recognize the exhaustion of appeals rule

  10. R.D.H. Communications, Ltd. v. Winston

    700 A.2d 766 (D.C. 1997)   Cited 36 times
    Finding that continuous representation rule tolled statute of limitations, even after plaintiff's FCC petition was denied due to defendant's error, in part because plaintiff did not “hire a new attorney” and chose “to stay the course with” defendant

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 156,116 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."