Legal Opinion
Hurwitz v. Padden
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 7, 1998No. C0-98-213PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SHORT, Judge.
Michael B. Padden seeks a quantum meru-it recovery of legal fees from lawsuits acquired prior to the dissolution of the firm, Hurwitz & Padden, PLC. On appeal from the trial court’s equal division of those fees, Pad-den argues the trial court erred in applying partnership principles to the law firm’s dissolution.
FACTS
In September 1991, Thomas R. Hurwitz and Michael B. Padden formed a two-person law firm, Hurwitz & Padden, PLC (“firm”), but failed to enter into a written partnership agreement. The partners shared all firm proceeds on a 50-50 basis, and reported all income…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Beckman v. FarmerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Jewel v. BoxerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Ellerby v. SpiezerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1985
- Evans v. BlesiCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- ARC LifeMed, Inc. v. AMC-Tennessee, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2005
- Northbrook Digital, LLC v. Vendio Services, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2008
- Huber v. EtkinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- 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
- Faegre & Benson, LLP v. R & R INVESTORSCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.