Legal Opinion
Consolver v. Hotze
Court of Appeals of Kansas
Decided March 20, 2015No. 110483PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Atcheson, J.:
Plaintiff Mahnaz Consolver decided to change lawyers partway through this personal injury action she filed in Sedgwick County District Court. Bradley A. Pistotnik, the forsaken lawyer, filed a lien against any recovery for his fees and expenses. After Consolver s new lawyer settled the underlying tort claim, the district court enforced the lien by awarding Pistotnik a partial fee based on the contingency clause of his contract with Consolver. The district court erred. We remand for a redetermination of the fee due Pistotnik founded on a lodestar calculation consistent with the…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- City of Burlington v. DagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- State v. WardSupreme Court of Kansas · 2011
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Consolver v. HotzeSupreme Court of Kansas · 2017