Legal Opinion

Tinsley v. City of Charlotte

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 6, 2013No. COA12-1543PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

McCullough, Judge.

• Attorney Curtis Osborne (“appellant”) appeals from the Opinion and Award filed by the North Carolina Industrial Commission (the “Commission”) on 22 October 2012 that limited his recovery of attorneys’ *745fees to one-third of the settlement in the third-party case. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Background

This appeal arises out of appellant’s representation of Michael K. Tinsley (“plaintiff’) in worker’s compensation and third-party cases. The cases stem from a 1 December 2007 work-related automobile accident in which plaintiff was injured.

In the workers’ compensation…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hendrix v. Linn-Corriher Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. White v. PateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Parker v. Thompson-Arthur Paving Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  4. Radzisz v. Harley Davidson of Metrolina, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
  5. Hardy v. Brantley Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. DiCesare v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API