City of Garland v. Huston
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
STEPHENS, Justice.
The City of Garland appeals from the trial court’s allocation of attorney’s fees pursuant to article 8307, section 6a of the Act.1 The City contends that appellees’ attorneys were not entitled to attorney’s fees out of the City’s subrogation recovery because (1) the attorney’s services were not rendered on behalf of the City, (2) there existed a conflict of interest between the City and the appellees, and (3) appellees’ attorneys failed to show they filed the written authorization and consent form as required by the Act. We disagree with each of appellant’s contentions.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Wood Et AlSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1967
- Hartford Insurance Co. v. Branton & Mendelsohn, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1984
- Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Plessner, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1984
- International Insurance Co. v. Burnett & Ahders, AssociatedCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980
- Chambers v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. DooleyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
- Christy Carty v. Texas Dept of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2013
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against DooleyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999