Legal Opinion

Kaushiva v. Hutter

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided January 12, 1983No. 81-1625PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NEWMAN, Chief Judge:

Appellant Kaushiva appeals a judgment of the trial court requiring him to pay appellee Hutter attorney’s fees as specified in a contingency fee agreement (“Agreement”) between the two. The trial court ordered appellant to pay $22,422.48, which represents 15 percent of his recovery in the arbitration dispute for which he had retained appellee as counsel. Appellant argues that appellee did not complete performance of the contract and is thus entitled only to quantum meruit for his services. 1 We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment. We hold that an attorney who…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mandell and Wright v. ThomasTexas Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Max Holtzman, Inc. v. K & T CO., INC.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. Walters Ex Rel. Walters v. HastingsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1972
  4. John McShain, Inc. v. L'Enfant Plaza Properties, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  5. In Re DownsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1963

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Ramírez, Segal & Látimer v. Rojo RigualSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1989
  2. Fox & Assocs. Co. v. PurdonOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Roberts v. HuttonOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
  4. In Re WallerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Green v. Louis Fireison & AssociatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992

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

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

Powered by the Exa API