Legal Opinion
Stuart v. Bayless
Texas Supreme Court
Decided March 13, 1998No. 96-1298PublishedCited by 66 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
In this case, we address whether, in a fee dispute between a lawyer and a client, a lawyer may recover, in addition to the fees owed, lost contingency fees from other eases. We conclude that in this ease lost contingency fees were not reasonably foreseeable and thus are not recoverable. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals in part and affirm in all other respects. 945 S.W.2d 131.
Burta Rhodes Raborn, Bobbie Bayless, and the law firm of Bayless & Stokes (B & S) represented Kae Stuart in a divorce proceeding and in two subsequent eases arising out of that divorce.…
3Cases cited2 opinions
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1997
- Mead v. Johnson Group, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1981
4Cited by66 opinions
- MBM Financial Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co.Texas Supreme Court · 2009
- Zachry Construction Corporation v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, TexasTexas Supreme Court · 2014
- Basic Capital Management, Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2011
- ExxonMobil Corp. v. Valence Operating Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2005
- Strauss v. Continental Airlines, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2002
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.