In re McInerney
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION REGARDING THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT WITH THE ACKERMAN DEFENDANTS
THOMAS J. TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge.
I. Introduction
The dispute now before the Court in this case requires consideration of Michigan law concerning the amount of a fee to be paid, on the basis of quantum meruit, to an attorney who did substantial work on a commercial lawsuit on a contingent-fee basis, but who was terminated and replaced by successor counsel who later settled the case.
This case is before the Court on the Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion entitled “Chapter 7 Trustee’s Motion Pursuant…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Schwab v. ReillySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Harold M. Reynolds v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
- In Re MartinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- Charles W. Bauer, Jr. And Nellie P. Bauer, Robert H. Waldschmidt, Trustee v. Commerce Union Bank, Clarksville, Tennessee and Kenneth C. BainesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Christopher D WymanUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2019
- Christopher D WymanUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2023
- Kohut v. Ackerman & Ackerman P.C. (In re McInerney)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2015