Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ed. 2000)). In the legal malpractice context, injury is the invasion of another’s legal interest, while damages are the monetary value of those injuries. Id. The Huffs were injured by Mr. Roach when he missed the statute of limitations, effectively invading their legal interes 992) (finding statute of limitations did not begin to run until final judgment was entered, although plaintiff was aware of attorney’s failure to present crucial evidence prior to that date); Inc. v. Drakulich, 107 Nev. 367, 369-70, 811 P.2d 1305 (1991) (finding statute of limitations for legal malpractice does not begin to run until the conclusion of the underlying litigation; until then, the element of injury or damage remains speculative and remote); Johnson v. Cornett, 474 N.E.2d 518, 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (<HOLDING>). f 16 Adopting the Huffs’ proposed exception 
 Holding statements: (A) holding attorney negligence did not result in damage until dissolution order in divorce proceeding became final (B) holding that order awarding attorney fees in amount to be determined at later date was not final appealable order (C) holding that a courts custody order was not a final order and not appealable with a rule 304a finding because a petition for dissolution advances a single claim (D) holding that an order pending divorce is not a final judgment that creates a right of appeal (E) holding that section 4523755 provides that a third party may intervene in a case in which custody is at issue only in a dissolution of marriage action or a modification of a dissolution proceeding and reversing the circuit courts order permitting a grandmother to intervene in an adoption proceeding for the purposes of obtaining visitation
Output (English): holding that an order pending divorce is not a final judgment that creates a right of appeal