Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictiondamagesattorneyliabilitystatutetrialverdictmalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpracticejury trial
damagesattorneyverdictmalpracticelegal malpractice

Related Cases

Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So.2d 194, 57 USLW 2374
View Case »
George v. Caton, 93 N.M. 370, 600 P.2d 822, 1979-NMCA-028
View Case »
Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 465, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 14,149, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,829
View Case »
U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Texas Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 56 Fed.R.Serv.3d 458
View Case »
In re Mid-America Living Trust Associates, Inc., 927 S.W.2d 855
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 55 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 376

Facts

Larry Parker, a businessman, formed a joint venture and intended to provide his daughters, Terry and Tracy, with a financial inheritance through promissory notes. After receiving $1.7 million each, the sisters sought tax advice from Edwin Hunter, who provided them with flawed guidance that led to tax deficiencies. Following a series of legal disputes with their father and the IRS, the sisters ultimately sued their attorneys for malpractice and related claims, resulting in a jury trial that found the attorneys liable.

In 1979, Larry Parker (“Parker”), a self-made entrepreneur, businessman, and land developer, discovered over four hundred acres of undeveloped land in a potentially lucrative residential area outside of Houston.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether the attorneys committed malpractice by providing incorrect tax advice, whether the Texas court had jurisdiction over the Louisiana attorneys, and whether the damages awarded were appropriate under Texas law.

The main legal issue(s) or question(s) the court needed to resolve.

Rule

The court applied Texas law regarding legal malpractice, which requires proving duty, breach, causation, and damages. It also addressed jurisdictional issues and the applicable statute of limitations.

The court applied Texas law regarding legal malpractice, which requires proving duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Analysis

The court found that the attorneys had a duty to provide competent legal advice and that their failure to do so directly caused the sisters' financial harm. The jury's findings were supported by sufficient evidence demonstrating that the attorneys breached their duty and that the sisters suffered damages as a result. The court also ruled that Texas law applied to the case, affirming the jury's verdict on liability and damages.

The court found that the attorneys had a duty to provide competent legal advice and that their failure to do so directly caused the sisters' financial harm.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the sisters on most counts but reversed the award of certain additional damages, remanding the case for recalculation in accordance with Texas law.

The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the sisters on most counts but reversed the award of certain additional damages.

Who won?

The sisters, Terry and Tracy, prevailed in the case due to the jury's finding that the attorneys had provided negligent legal advice that resulted in significant financial losses for them.

The sisters, Terry and Tracy, prevailed in the case due to the jury's finding that the attorneys had provided negligent legal advice that resulted in significant financial losses for them.

You must be