Legal Opinion

First National Bank of Boston v. Brink

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 29, 1977PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBraucher, J.

The plaintiff challenges the reasonableness of a legal fee of $760,000 charged by the law firm of Hale and Dorr (the law firm), for representing Thompson Wire Company (Thompson Wire) in a tax deficiency proceeding in the United States Tax Court under § 531 of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to unreasonable accumulations (the tax case). A judge of the Superior Court found that the fee “lies at the outer limit of the range of reason and fairness,” and denied relief. We in*259terpret that finding as a finding that the fee was reasonable, and uphold the finding as not clearly erroneous. We also…

2Cases cited24 opinions

United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
Cummings v. National Shawmut Bank of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
Stop & Shop, Inc. v. GanemMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964
Marlow v. City of New BedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976

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

3Cited by73 opinions

Sterilite Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1983
Scott Peckham v. Continental Casualty Insurance Co., Scott Peckham v. Continental Casualty Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
Accusoft Corporation, Appellant\cross-Appellee v. James L. Palo Simon Weiczner Individually and D/B/A Snowbound Software, Appellees\cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
Chelsea Industries, Inc. v. GaffneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
Northern Heel Corp. v. Compo Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988

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