Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Cates finds the lower court properly found in favor of an attorney in this matter of legal malpractice and properly denied a property owner’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the evidence. The property owner retained the attorney for guidance related to a proposed real estate development project. The attorney testified that he told the property owner that he did not believe developing the property on his own was a wise business venture, and that he explained the pros and cons of incorporating the project to limit the property owner’s exposure to liability. But the property owner says he was never advised on incorporation or on a pipeline easement that ran through the property, as supported by evidence, that the court should enter a judgment in his favor, and that he should be granted a new trial for damages. The instant court finds that the evidence presented was subject to interpretation, and will not second guess the findings of the jury. Affirmed.