Luvene v. Waldrup, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-01313-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-01313-COA ; 2002-CT-01313-SCT ; 2002-CA-01313-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-09-2005 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part and the Judgment of the Circuit Court is Reinstated and Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Legal malpractice - M.R.C.P. 56 - Sufficiency of expert’s affidavit - Proximate causation Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Graves, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - LEGAL MALPRACTICE Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-12-2002 Appealed from: Marshall County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: The circuit court granted Waldrup’s and Cooke’s separate motions for summary judgment. Case Number: M00-242 |
|
| Note: | SC reversed in part Appellate court decision. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Luvene |
PEARSON LIDDELL, GREGORY C. WEISS, MICHAEL J. HALL |
||
| Appellee: | Dorothy Waldrup and Michael Cooke | MICHAEL D. CHASE, JOHN G. WHEELER, BEVERLY DAVIS BUSKIRK, GRADY F. TOLLISON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Legal malpractice - M.R.C.P. 56 - Sufficiency of expert’s affidavit - Proximate causation |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Luvene sued attorneys Dorothy Waldrup and Michael Cooke for legal malpractice. The court granted Waldrup’s and Cooke’s separate motions for summary judgment, and Luvene appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court regarding Waldrup and reversed the judgment of the court regarding Cooke. Cooke filed a petition for writ of certiorari which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | To recover in a legal malpractice case, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of a lawyer-client relationship, negligence on the part of the lawyer in handling his client’s affairs entrusted to him, and proximate cause of the injury. The plaintiff must show that, but for his attorney’s negligence, he would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the underlying action. Expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to support an action for legal malpractice. To withstand summary judgment, the non-moving party’s claim must be supported by more than a mere scintilla of colorable evidence; it must be evidence upon which a fair-minded jury could return a favorable verdict. Luvene filed the affidavit of Charles Yoste, a licensed Mississippi attorney, to support his argument that genuine issues of material fact existed. This affidavit was a broad summarization of the three required elements of a legal malpractice claim. It failed to set forth specific facts and certainly did not provide more than a mere scintilla of colorable evidence. Yoste’s affidavit is silent on the issue of whether Luvene would have been successful in the court action, had Cooke not been negligent. Luvene did not present any other evidence to support his claim that Cooke’s negligence proximately caused an injury. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the circuit court. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
