Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-0087 Stensland v. Warshafsky, Rotter, Tarnoff, Reinhardt and Bloch, S.C.

By: dmc-admin//August 6, 2001//

01-0087 Stensland v. Warshafsky, Rotter, Tarnoff, Reinhardt and Bloch, S.C.

By: dmc-admin//August 6, 2001//

Listen to this article

Liduvina Stensland appeals from the trial court’s summary judgment dismissing her legal malpractice action against Warshafsky, Rotter, Tarnoff, Reinhardt and Bloch, S.C. She claims that the court erred in concluding that issue preclusion barred her claim. Liduvina raises two issues: (1) whether judicial estoppel is applicable; and (2) whether issue preclusion was proper.

Because judicial estoppel is inapplicable and issue preclusion was properly applied, we affirm.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Sullivan, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: S.A. Shapiro, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Phillip C. Reid, Milwaukee

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests