Legal Opinion

Breeze v. Sims

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided August 18, 1989No. S-2929PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MOORE, Justice.

The issue on appeal is whether an arbitration panel sitting pursuant to Alaska Bar Rule 34 erred in ordering an attorney to partially refund attorney fees paid pursuant to an oral agreement.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Dennis and Michelle Sims entered into an

oral agreement with attorney Robert Breeze whereby Breeze agreed to provide legal services for Jeffrey Steele in obtaining a patent for his pipe-cleaning invention. 1 According to Breeze, he and the Sims agreed upon a fee of $100 per hour, with no cap. The Sims maintain, however, that they agreed to hire Breeze at $100…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. University of Alaska v. Modern Construction, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Alaska State Housing Authoarity v. Riley Pleas, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Curran v. HastreiterAlaska Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Cleary Diving Service, Inc. v. Thomas, Head & GreisenAlaska Supreme Court · 1984

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Ahtna, Inc. v. Ebasco Constructors, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Bennett v. HedglinAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Butler v. DunlapAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  4. OK Lumber Co., Inc. v. Alaska RR Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Johnson v. The Aleut CorporationAlaska Supreme Court · 2013

9 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