Gull v. Van Epps
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
1Opinion of the CourtSundby, J.
In this cáse we decide that the law partnership of Van Epps, Gull and Werth continued after dissolution solely for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the partnership. Therefore, the withdrawing partner, plaintiff-appellant Jerome E. Gull, is not entitled to share in fees from new business earned by Van Epps and Werth during the winding up of the partnership affairs. However, as to work in progress at the time of dissolution of the partnership, the net fees earned by all three partners remain the property of the partnership and are to be shared according to the sharing formula in effect…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Beckman v. FarmerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Union Bank v. JonesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1980
- Jewel v. BoxerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Girard Bank v. HALEYSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Rossetti v. City of New BritainSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Huber v. EtkinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Piaskoski & Associates v. RicciardiCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2004
- Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Estate of Labrum & Doak v. Ashdale (In Re Labrum & Doak, LLP)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
- Estate of Matteson v. MattesonWisconsin Supreme Court · 2008
- Hurwitz v. PaddenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.