Legal Opinion

Redlich v. Lanell

Massachusetts Superior Court

Decided March 3, 2006No. SUCV200203213CPublished

1Opinion of the Court

Smith, Herman J., J.

I.INTRODUCTION

These consolidated actions involve a dispute between an attorney and his client over the enforceability of their fee agreement as modified; the attorney’s claims against successor counsel for attorney fees pursuant to the operation of the modified fee agreement; the attorney’s claim against his client’s former wife for tortious interference with advantageous contractual relationship; and her counterclaim for abuse of process. This matter was tried before the Court without a jury.

In his first action, Civil Action No. SUCV200203213, dated July 23, 2002,…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Hendrickson v. SearsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  3. Danca v. Taunton Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  4. Marine Contractors Co. Inc. v. HurleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  5. Spilker v. HankinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951

29 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