Legal Opinion

Cazares v. Saenz

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 28, 1989No. D006141PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WIENER, Acting P. J.

On one level, the issue in this case is simply one of attorney’s fees. Are plaintiffs Roy Cazares and Thomas Tosdal, former partners in the law firm of Cazares & Tosdal, entitled to one-half of a contingent fee promised them by defendant Phil Saenz when he associated the firm on a particular personal injury case, notwithstanding that Cazares became a municipal court judge before the case was settled? More fundamentally, however, the issue before us requires that we review not only the nature of contingent attorney fee arrangements but also basic contract law…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Fracasse v. BrentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. A & M PRODUCE CO. v. FMC Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1982
  3. State Bar of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Jewel v. BoxerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  5. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance v. KinslerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Mardirossian & Associates, Inc. v. ErsoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  2. Waddy v. RigglemanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Fergus v. SongerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. Webster v. Barbara (In Re Otis & Edwards, P.C.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 1990
  5. Joye v. HeuerDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1993

25 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