Legal Opinion

Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley v. Cadle Co. of Ohio, Inc.

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1993No. 20332PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MONTGOMERY, Justice.

This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, a law firm, awarding it the amount sought in its complaint as fees allegedly earned in representing the defendant over a period of time (plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney’s fees), and dismissing the defendant’s counterclaims. Defendant, Cadle Company of Ohio, Inc. (“Cadle”), 1 challenges the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley (“Hinkle”), on Hinkle’s complaint and on Cadle’s counterclaims to recover amounts…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Weaver v. LaubSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
  2. Comer & Co. v. Way & EdmundsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
  3. Thompson Drilling, Inc. v. RomigNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Jacobs v. HolstonOhio Court of Appeals · 1980
  5. Peck v. Title USA Ins. Corp.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State v. Alvarez-LopezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Jaramillo v. GonzalesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2002
  3. Calhoun v. CalhounSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  4. Robbins v. KrockMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2008
  5. Leafland Group-II, Montgomery Towers Ltd. Partnership v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994

17 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