Legal Opinion

Auburn v. Cappadona

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided May 2, 1983PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWelsh, P. J.

These two actions sounding in contract were tried together and present the identical issue on appeal. The plaintiff, as administrator with the will annexed of Harold A. Leventhal, claims that the defendant is indebted to the estate of the decedent for legal services rendered by the decedent at the request of the defendant. Defendant claims that the services rendered were unnecessary and of no value to him, and further that no recovery is warranted because of the terms of a contingent fee agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff s testator.

The court found for the plaintiff in each…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sweeney v. Morey & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  2. Damaskos v. Board of Appeal of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
  3. Donnelly v. MontagueMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  4. Orasz v. Colonial Tavern, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  5. H. K. Webster Co. v. MannMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Newman v. BrennanMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1988
  2. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. KresslerMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API