Legal Opinion
Alioto v. Hoiles
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided August 2, 2013No. 10-1441UnpublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
TERRENCE L. O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.
Timothy Hoiles, a Colorado resident, and Joseph Alioto, a California attorney, entered into a written contingency attorney fee agreement (Fee Agreement or Agreement). Section 6147(a)(3) of the California Business and Professions Code requires contingency fee agreements to contain, inter alia, “[a] statement as to what extent, if any, the client could be required to pay any compensation to the attorney for related matters that arise out of their relationship not covered by their contingency fee contract. This may include any amounts…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- MacKinnon v. Truck Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers' Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2011
- Sanders v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Alioto v. HoilesSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Cook and Sons Mining, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2020