Legal Opinion

McIntosh v. Mills

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 3, 2004No. A101673PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RUVOLO, J.

L

INTRODUCTION

Appellant J. Nicholas McIntosh appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of respondent Robert W. Mills (Mills). The trial court granted Mills’s summary judgment after concluding, as a matter of law, that an alleged 2 agreement to share a legal fee (the fee-sharing agreement) entered into between Mills, a member of the State Bar of California, and McIntosh, a nonattomey, was unenforceable. 3 In reviewing the matter de novo, we agree that the fee-sharing agreement was unenforceable under the doctrine of illegality of contract. Further, we conclude that no…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400California Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Smith v. BachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Brown v. GrimesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. DeJung v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. HyonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  4. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co.California Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Medina v. Safe-Guard Products, International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008

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

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

Powered by the Exa API