Legal Opinion
City of Morgan Hill v. Brown
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 30, 1999No. H016088PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ELIA, J.
The City of Morgan Hill (the City) filed a complaint in inter-pleader asking that Brown, Pistone, Hurley, & Van Vlear (the Firm) and Attorney Margaret A. Seltzer, a former shareholder in the Firm, litigate between themselves their entitlement to legal fees (Fees) owed by the City. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.) The City deposited the Fees in court and the trial court discharged it from the litigation. The Firm then moved for summary judgment. It argued that the Firm was entitled to the Fees pursuant to the contingent fee agreement between the Firm and City and that any compensation…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Lundquist v. ReusserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Burch v. GeorgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Jewel v. BoxerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Fox v. AbramsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Del Real v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Defend the Bay v. City of IrvineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- DIAL 800 v. FesbinderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.