Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Hylton v. Frank E. Rogozienski, Inc., No. D053371

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on September 24, 2009 12:30 PM

In plaintiff's legal malpractice action against his former attorney seeking damages and rescission of a contingency fee contract, trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed as: 1) the trial court correctly ruled that defendant had not met his threshold burden of showing that plaintiff's claims arise from petitioning activity within the purview of the anti-SLAPP statute; and 2) this rendered unnecessary any consideration of defendant's arguments that plaintiff failed to show probable success on the merits. 

Read Hylton v. Frank E. Rogozienski, Inc., No. D053371

Filed September 23, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge McDonald

Counsel

For Appellant:  Frank E. Rogozienski, Inc., Frank E. Rogozienski; Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek and Gerald L. McMahon

For Appelle:  Stephen M. Hogan; Herron & Steele and Matthew V. Herron

Find a Lawyer

More Options