Legal Opinion
Philip Morris Inc. v. Glendening
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided May 19, 1998No. 10, Sept. Term, 1997PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BELL, Chief Judge.
The sole issue before the Court is the legality of a contingency fee contract executed by the Attorney General of Maryland and a private law firm for the purpose of representing the State in a major tort litigation. We shall hold that the contract, which was authorized by the Governor and approved by the Board of Public Works, is valid.
I
On March 27, 1996, the Attorney General, after receiving authorization from the Governor, entered into a contingency fee contract (hereinafter, the “Contract”) with a private law firm (hereinafter, “outside counsel”) to “provide legal…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Young v. United States Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Martin v. MottSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Kevin G. Kelly v. The Boeing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. George S. Bush & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. Lead Industries, Ass'n, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2008
- Kotterman v. KillianArizona Supreme Court · 1999
- People v. Philip Morris, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 2001
- Ehrlich v. PerezCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
- Office of the Governor v. Washington Post Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.