Legal Opinion
Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided September 18, 2003No. CIV.A. 01-10099-WGYPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*208 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YOUNG, Chief Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case involves disputes stemming from the Master Settlement Agreement (“Master Agreement”) in the coordinated litigation against this country’s major tobacco manufacturers. The Plaintiff, Richard Daynard (“Daynard”) sued Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole; Ronald Motley; Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman & Dent; and Richard F. Scruggs (collectively “Ness Motley and Scruggs”), alleging that they failed to pay him an agreed-upon percentage of attorneys’ fees generated by the Master Agreement. Ness Motley and Scruggs subsequently filed…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
- Arthur F. Sawtelle, Etc. v. George E. FarrellCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Robert S. Boit v. Gar-Tec Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Daynard v. MRRM, P.A.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004
- Daynard v. NESS, MOTLEY, LOADHOLT, RICHARDSONDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003