Legal Opinion
Thompson v. Montgomery & Andrews, P.A.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided July 9, 1991No. 11356PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BIVINS, Judge.
Attorney James A. Thompson appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He raises two issues: (1) that the district court erred in ruling that Thompson did not have an enforceable charging lien; and (2) that the district court erred in refusing to allow Thompson to amend his complaint to state alternative causes of action. We hold that the district court correctly ruled Thompson had no enforceable attorney’s charging lien and, because we determine no cause of action exists against these defendants under…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Rhoades v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1979
- Three Rivers Land Co., Inc. v. MaddouxNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1982
- Universal Life Church v. CoxonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1986
- Heinzman v. Fine, Fine, Legum & FineSupreme Court of Virginia · 1977
- Hanna Paint Manufacturing Company, D/B/A Hanna Paint Mfg. Co. Of Texas, as Intervener v. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & RobbCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Callaway v. New Mexico Department of CorrectionsNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
- Moffat v. Branch ex rel. VincoyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2005
- Computer One, Inc. v. Grisham & Lawless P.A.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2008
- United Properties Ltd. v. Walgreen Properties, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2003
- Moffat v. BranchNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.