Legal Opinion
Musser v. Musser
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 17, 1995No. 77862, 78036PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMMS, Justice.
We grant certiorari to consider the first impression question of whether a lawyer’s “interest” in contingent fee cases 1 is a part of the marital estate for purposes of equitable division in a matrimonial action. We find that contingent fee cases by their very nature do not constitute a vested interest and cannot be deemed jointly-acquired marital property until recovery is accomplished.
The second and only remaining issue on certiorari is whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to determine the propriety of the trial court’s order ruling Husband’s projected income taxes…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. QuanstromSupreme Court of Florida · 1990
- Hough v. LeonardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Pocius v. HalvorsenIllinois Supreme Court · 1963
- Hubbard v. HubbardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979
- Carpenter v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- McQueen, Rains & Tresch, LLP v. CITGO Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
- McDermott v. McDermottSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
- Roberts v. RobertsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997
- Self & Associates, Inc. v. JacksonCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2011
- Carol Lowe v. Mercy Clinic East Communities, Bryan Menges, D.O., James D. Cassat, M.D., and Mercy Hospitals East CommunitiesMissouri Court of Appeals · 2021
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.