From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crockett v. Crockett

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Feb 11, 1993
612 So. 2d 89 (La. 1993)

Opinion

No. 92-CC-3149.

February 11, 1993.

In re Morgan, Caren M.; Kissel, Kerry A., Morgan Kissel; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Terrebonne, Thirty-Second Judicial District Court, Div. "B", No. 89418; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit; No. CW92 1036.


Granted. An attorney does not owe a legal duty to this client's adversary when acting in his client's behalf, absent a showing of intentionally tortious conduct on the attorney's part, such as knowingly violating a prohibitory law. Penalber v. Blount, 550 So.2d 577 (La. 1989). There is no showing that relators' action in connection with their representation of Mr. Crockett rose to the level of intentionally tortious conduct. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court denying relator's motion for summary judgment is reversed. The motion for summary judgment is hereby granted in favor of Caren. M. Morgan, Kerry A. Kissel and the law firm of Morgan Kissel, dismissing plaintiff's suit against them at her cost.

DENNIS and LEMMON, JJ. would grant and remand to the court of appeal for briefing, argument, and opinion.

HALL, J. not on panel.


Summaries of

Crockett v. Crockett

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Feb 11, 1993
612 So. 2d 89 (La. 1993)
Case details for

Crockett v. Crockett

Case Details

Full title:SHERRY MANCHESTER CROCKETT v. EMMETT EUGENE CROCKETT, JR., CAREN M…

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: Feb 11, 1993

Citations

612 So. 2d 89 (La. 1993)

Citing Cases

Joyner v. Wear

An attorney does not owe a legal duty to his client's adversary when acting in his client's behalf, absent a…

Blanchard v. Blanchard

Both Penalber and Montalvo address the situation in which a plaintiff files suit against his adversary's…