Legal Opinion

Salmon v. Atkinson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 11, 2003No. 03-535PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Donald L. Corbin, Justice.

This case involves an issue of first impression: Whether an attorney who enters into a contingent-fee contract with a client and is later discharged by the client may bring an action for a quantum-meruit fee prior to the resolution of the former client’s lawsuit. Appellant Joy Salmon contends that the discharged attorney’s cause of action does not accrue unless and until the client is successful in recovering an award. She thus contends that the Pulaski County Circuit Court erred in awarding Appellees Virginia Atkinson and James Howell legal fees in the amount of…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Fracasse v. BrentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Rosenberg v. LevinSupreme Court of Florida · 1982
  3. Matter of TillmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  4. Plaza Shoe Store, Inc. v. Hermel, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1982
  5. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa v. BassettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. KosinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2011
  2. Salmon v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API