Legal Opinion

Daynard v. MRRM, P.A.

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided July 2, 2004No. CIV.A. 01-10099-WGYPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

YOUNG, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves disputes stemming from the Master Settlement Agreement (“Master Agreement”) that resolved litigation against various tobacco manufacturers. The Plaintiff, Richard Daynard (“Daynard”), sued Ronald Motley; Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole (now MRRM, P.A.; hereinafter “Ness Motley”); Richard F. Scruggs; and Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman & Dent (collectively “Scruggs”), alleging that they failed to pay him an agreed-upon percentage of attorneys’ fees generated by the Master Agreement. Ness Motley filed a third-party complaint…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Richard A. Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A. Ronald L. Motley, Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman & Dent P.A. Richard F. ScruggsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002
  3. Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  4. Brown v. Drillers, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1994
  5. ROYER HOMES OF MS., INC. v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2003

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Sampel v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API