Legal Opinion

Department of Mental Hygiene v. Dunham

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 12, 1948No. Civ. No. 13575PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PETERS, P. J., and BRAY, J.

Respondent's petition for rehearing contends that our opinion leaves open the question as to whether in fixing an heir hunter’s fee in a guardianship proceeding it is proper for the trial judge to use a percentage. As pointed out in the main opinion, where there is no express contract, the right to a fee is based primarily upon a showing that the incompetent is a missing person, in the true sense, and therefore that the services of the heir hunter are of real value to the incompetent. When that is shown, the judge may fix the reasonable value of the services…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Merrick v. LarsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  2. Lackmann v. Department of Mental HygieneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. Estate of Marshall v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API