Legal Opinion

Hoover Slovacek LLP v. Walton

Texas Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 2006No. 04-1004PublishedCited by 121 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Jefferson

in which Justice O’NEILL, Justice WAINWRIGHT, Justice BRISTER, Justice GREEN, and Justice JOHNSON joined.

We deny Walton’s motion for rehearing and grant Hoover Slovacek’s motion for rehearing. We withdraw our opinion of June 30, 2006 and substitute the following in its place.

In this case, we must determine whether an attorney hired on a contingent-fee basis may include in the fee agreement a provision stating that, in the event the attorney is discharged before completing the representation, the client must immediately pay a fee equal to the present value of the attorney’s interest in the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Bocquet v. HerringTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C.Texas Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Lopez v. Muñoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P.Texas Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Boyce Iron Works, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by121 opinions

  1. In Re Poly-America, L.P.Texas Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LPTexas Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Royston, Rayzor, Vickery, & Williams, Llp v. Francisco "Frank" LopezTexas Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Anglo-Dutch Petroleum International, Inc. v. Greenberg Peden, P.C.Texas Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Chu v. Chong Hui HongTexas Supreme Court · 2008

116 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