Legal Opinion
Williams v. Dow Chemical Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided November 3, 1987No. C2-87-1111PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANSING, Judge.
James Malcolm Williams, who represented E.E. “Pete” Parrante and the E.E. “Pete” Parrante Companies, Inc. (the Par-rante defendants), in a federal lawsuit against the Dow Chemical Company, Inc., brought this suit against the parties to that litigation, their lawyers, and the recipients of the proceeds of that litigation to recover his attorney’s fees under theories of attorney’s lien, express or implied contract, and fraud. He appeals the entry of partial summary judgment in favor of all defendants except the Parrante defendants and Val Parrante Davis. We affirm, as to…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Klein v. First Edina National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Berg v. Xerxes-Southdale Office Building Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Barnes v. VerrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Kubu v. KabesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Burns v. ValeneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- McGonigle v. CombsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Cummins Law Office, P.A. v. Norman Graphic Printing Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2011
- Kellogg Square Partnership, a Minnesota Partnership, Debtor-In-Possession v. The Prudential Insurance Company of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
- Empro Corp. v. Scottland Hotels, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
- City of Oronoco v. Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC v. Whitney National Bankof New Orleans, LouisianaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.