Legal Opinion

Mullins v. Richlands National Bank

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided April 19, 1991No. Record 900962PublishedCited by 105 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Stephenson

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the attorney’s fee awarded by the trial court is reasonable under the facts and circumstances presented.

The parties agreed to a written statement of facts pursuant to Rule 5:11(c). Richlands National Bank brought separate actions against J.R. Mullins, Mullins, Inc., Mullins Ford, Inc., and J.R. Mullins, II, (collectively, Mullins) to recover judgments on three separate promissory notes, executed by Mullins and aggregating $405,679.48. Mullins filed a grounds of defense admitting liability on the notes, and the actions were submitted to the trial court…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gilmore v. Basic Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1987
  2. Beale v. King, AdministratrixSupreme Court of Virginia · 1963
  3. Lannon v. Lee Conner Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1989

3Cited by105 opinions

  1. Ulloa v. Qsp, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2006
  2. Tazewell Oil Co. v. United Virginia Bank/Crestar BankSupreme Court of Virginia · 1992
  3. RF & P CORP. v. LittleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1994
  4. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson v. Lake Fairfax Seven Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of Virginia · 1997
  5. Hitachi Credit America Corp. v. Signet BankCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999

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

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

Powered by the Exa API