Legal Opinion
United States v. Hudson
District Court, D. Montana
Decided May 21, 1941No. 1489PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PRAY, District Judge.
A claim of attorney’s lien is asserted herein by Messrs. C. D. Borton and George W. Farr, attorneys at law, who had a contract to represent Patricia Hudson, a landowner and one of the defendants in the above-entitled cause, which is a condemna*799tion suit brought by the United States to condemn the lands therein described for the use of the Fort Peck Public Works Project in Montana; the contract was on a contingent fee basis and provided that in event of a condemnation suit being instituted by the government, counsel above named would represent the said defendant before the…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Matter of HeinsheimerNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Goodrich v. . McDonaldNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Check v. KaplanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Bulk Oil Transports, Inc. v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Holmes v. . EvansNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- SISTERS OF CHARITY OF PROV. OF MONT. v. NicholsMontana Supreme Court · 1971
- Katopodis v. Liberian S/T Olympic SunDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1968
- Gelfand, Greer, Popko & Miller v. ShivenerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- United States v. JacobsDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1959
- United States v. 72.71 Acres of LandDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1958
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.