From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Viner v. Sweet
Supreme Court of California
30 Cal. 4th 1232, 70 P.3d 1046 (2003)
The Viners (plaintiffs) formed Dove Audio, Inc. (Dove) in 1984. Dove made a public stock offering in 1994. The Viners retained all of the company’s preferred stock and a substantial share of its common stock. The Viners also entered into long-term employment contracts with the company. In 1997, Media Equities International (MEI) entered into an agreement with the Viners to purchase Dove. Attorney Charles Sweet (defendant) represented the Viners in the transaction. After the sale, the Viners filed a malpractice action, alleging seven counts of negligence against Sweet and his law firm, Williams & Connolly (Sweet) (defendant). Following a trial, a jury awarded damages to the Viners. Sweet appealed, arguing that the traditional “but for” rule of causation in legal malpractice cases required the Viners to prove that Sweet’s negligence was the only reason they failed to either end up with a better deal or walk away from the transaction altogether. The Viners argued that requiring the plaintiff in a transactional malpractice action to prove attorney negligence was the proximate cause of claimed damages would make it too difficult to obtain supporting evidence. The Viners asserted that the “but for” standard would require them to procure testimony from adversarial parties acknowledging that they would have agreed to terms more favorable to the Viners if not for Sweet’s negligence. The state court of appeals rejected Sweet’s arguments and upheld most of the jury’s damages award in favor of the Viners. Sweet petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kennard, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.