Legal Opinion
Snead v. Watkins
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 17, 2008No. 07-PR-320PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Per curiam
Appellant Carl E. Snead contends that he is entitled to reasonable compensation for legal and fiduciary services that he performed for Jeff Watkins, who was the guardian and conservator of Hattie McDaniel’s estate, and that the trial court erred by failing to make specific fact findings in its denial of his petition for reasonable counsel fees. D.C.Code § 20-753(b) (2001); D.C. R. Profl Conduct 1.5(a) (2001); Super. Ct. Prob. R. 308 (2001). We agree, and we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case so that the trial court may provide specific findings of fact regarding the factors…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Johnson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- In Re OrshanskyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Poe v. NobleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re Conservatorship for RichDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1975
- Williams v. RayDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In Re Vivian N. Brown, Rosenau LLPDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
- Tiger Steel Engineering, LLC v. Symbion Power, LLCDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2018
- In Re Pearl Robinson Bruce E. GardnerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
- In re Edward T. Smith Bruce E. GardnerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2023
- In re GardnerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2022
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.