Legal Opinion
Raymark Ind Inc v. Butera BeaUnited Statesng, Cohen & Brennan, P.C.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided October 19, 1999No. 97-2020UnknownCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Raymark Industries, Inc. (“Raymark”) on this appeal seeks the reversal of an order of the district court denying it the return of a $1 million fee designated a “nonrefundable retainer” it paid to its for mer counsel, Michael Beausang (“Beau-sang”), of the Pennsylvania law firm of Butera, Beausang, Cohen & Brennan (“Butera, Beausang”). While Laureen Ryan as trustee of Raymark’s bankruptcy estate has been substituted as appellant, as a matter of convenience we continue to refer to Raymark as the appellant. We set…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Dunn v. H. K. Porter Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- Raytech Corporation v. Earl WhiteCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, a Partnership v. The Telex Corporation, a Corporation, and Telex Computer Products, Inc., AcorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Jack E. COUP, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Cohen v. Radio-Electronics Officers Union District 3Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ryan v. Butera, Beausang, Cohen & BrennanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999