Legal Opinion
Kahmann v. Buck
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided October 6, 1969No. 25187PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAUGHMER, Commissioner.
When the testatrix during her lifetime contracted with a lawyer on a contingent fee basis to prosecute her claim for personal injuries, may such lawyer (unless formally discharged) require her executor to furnish expenses for an appeal of a lawsuit thereon, and to prosecute such suit to finality ? That is the question.
The appellant Chris H. Kahmann is a practicing attorney. The respondent Rol-lin E. Buck is the executor of the estate of Emma Schmidt, deceased. Emma Schmidt, on January 31, 1963, when she was 80 years of age, suffered injuries arising out of an automobile…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Estate of Merritt v. MerrittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- In Re Alexander's EstateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
- In Re Estate of MillsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1942
- Crowley v. WolfNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Richardson v. WendelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Earney v. ClayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974
- Bullard v. Curry-CloonanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
- Sue Ann Hunter, Marie Joyce Kotsonis, L. Fargo Richardson and the L. F. Richardson Foundation v. The United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
- Estate of Veselich v. Northwestern National Casualty Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1988
- In re the Estate of ChrismanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988