Legal Opinion
Adkins v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided March 30, 2000No. Nos. 01-96-01528-CV, 01-98-00409-CV, 01-98-00016-CV, 01-98-00413-CV, 01-98-00124-CV, 01-98-00103-CV, 01-97-01321-CV, 01-98-00414-CV, 01-00-00289-CV, 01-00-00288-CV, 01-98-00018-CV, 01-98-00412-CV, 01-98-00415-CV, 01-98-00410-CV, 01-98-00411-CV and 01-00-00290-CVPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MARGARET GARNER MIRABAL, Justice.
The main issue presented in this case is whether, under Texas law as applied to these facts, a trial judge has the authority to change the terms of attorneys’ fee contracts between attorneys and their clients. This is mass tort litigation, but not a class action. Appellants1 complain about the trial court’s “Final Order Approving Attorney’s Fees and Expenses.” We reverse.
Procedural History
We granted a joint motion to decide these 16 appeals together. These appeals arise out of lawsuits filed in district courts in 11 Texas counties.2 They arrived in the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1997
- Burrow v. ArceTexas Supreme Court · 1999
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
- Eichelberger v. EichelbergerTexas Supreme Court · 1979
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.