Fox & Assocs. Co. v. Purdon
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The defendant-appellant asks that this court depart from a rule established in Scheinesohn v. Lemonek, supra, and followed in *71Roberts v. Montgomery, supra, paragraph two of the syllabus, in which we held that where it is proven that an express contingency fee contract between a lawyer and a client is breached by the client without just cause, “the measure of damages in such case is not limited to the reasonable value of the services rendered by the lawyers employed prior to the cancellation of the contract,” but rather damages should be for the full contract price.
Defendant argues that such a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Fracasse v. BrentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Plaza Shoe Store, Inc. v. Hermel, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1982
- Cole v. MyersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
- Booker v. Midpac Lumber Co., Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1982
- Kaushiva v. HutterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Aultman Hospital Ass'n v. Community Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Dudding v. Norton Frickey & AssociatesSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
- Reid, Johnson, Downes, Andrachik & Webster v. LansberryOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Aflac, Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1994
- Smith v. ConleyOhio Supreme Court · 2006
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.