Legal Opinion

Rader v. Thrasher

California Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 1962No. Sac. No. 7213PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDooling, J.

Plaintiff, an attorney at law, brought this action for declaratory relief to determine the validity of a contingent fee employment agreement made with defendant during the existence of an attorney-client relationship. The trial court found that the “agreement was executed by defendant of his own free will and volition and not as a result of any duress or undue influence by plaintiff, nor did defendant repose trust and confidence in plaintiff when said agreement was made.” Judgment was rendered declaring the agreement to be “valid, binding and subsisting.” Defendant appeals.

Defendant was…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Vai v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Morgan Clark v. MillsapCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Ford v. . HarringtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
  5. People v. MoroneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Ketchum v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Flannery v. California Highway PatrolCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Trafton v. YoungbloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Barbara A. v. John G.California Court of Appeal · 1983
  5. Main v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1977

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API