Legal Opinion

Styer v. Hugo

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 19, 1993No. 3410PublishedCited by 130 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BECK, Judge:

This appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee, David L. Styer, Esquire, and against appellant, Randall W. Hugo, Esquire, poses the following issue:

Is a lawyer who originally represented the plaintiffs in a personal injury action pursuant to an oral contingent fee agreement and who, upon being discharged by his clients prior to the termination or settlement of the action, requested no fee from his clients but agreed with the clients’ second lawyer that any fee received by the second lawyer would be shared with the first lawyer, entitled to recover a portion of the contingent fee…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  2. Moure v. RaeuchleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Meehan v. Cheltenham TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  4. Gee v. EberleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. D.A. Hill Co. v. Clevetrust Realty InvestorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

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

3Cited by130 opinions

  1. Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Schenck v. K.E. David, Ltd.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Stoeckinger v. Presidential Financial Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  5. Wiernik v. PHH U.S. Mortgage Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

125 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