Shriner v. Friedman Law Offices PC LLO

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Shriner v. Friedman Law Offices PC LLO

Case Number
Court Number
Call Date
October 10, 2018
Case Time
1:00 PM
Case Summary

A-17-993, Shriner v. Friedman Law Offices, P.C., L.L.O.

Lancaster County, District Judge William B. Zastera

Attorneys for Appellant: James D. Sherrets and Jared C. Olson (Sherrets Bruno & Vogt LLC)

Attorney for Appellee: Renee Eveland (Cline Williams Wright Johnson & Oldfather, L.L.P.)

Civil Action: Motion for Summary Judgment in a Legal Malpractice Action

Action Taken by the Trial Court: On remand after an initial appeal and decision by this court, Friedman filed a motion for summary judgment, and the district court granted it. The district court found that Friedman’s alleged facts were undisputed. It determined it could “disregard” one of Shriner’s affidavits as a matter of law, and instead rely on Shriner’s deposition (taken on remand). Generally, the district court found that Shriner’s position in prior proceedings was that she settled her case under coercion or duress, but that her position under her post-remand deposition was that Friedman settled her case without her authority. The district court concluded that all counts raised in Shriner’s amended complaint were resolved by the doctrines of judicial estoppel and/or equitable estoppel.

Assignments of Error on Appeal: Consolidated, reordered, and restated, Shriner claims the district court erred in granting Friedman’s motion for summary judgment when it (1) found there were no issues of material fact in dispute, (2) disregarded her supplemental affidavit as a matter of law, and (3) applied the doctrines of law-of-the-case, judicial estoppel, and equitable estoppel to bar Shriner’s claim.

Case Location
Court Type
District Court
Schedule Code
Panel Text
Moore, Chief Judge, Bishop and Arterburn, Judges