Legal Opinion
DeWitt, Porter, Huggett, Schumacher & Morgan, S.C. v. Kovalic
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided April 13, 1993No. 92-2941PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BAUER, Chief Judge.
In this appeal, a disgruntled client asks us to referee a fee dispute with his lawyers. A jury determined that the lawyers are entitled to $230,000. In response to post-trial motions, the district court granted Kovalic’s motion for an order to amend the judgment, and the law firm accepted a remittitur reducing the award to $150,000. The court refused to otherwise alter the jury's verdict. On appeal, the client contends that the trial was not fair and that his contract with the law firm is unenforceable because the fees are clearly excessive and unreasonable.
I. Background
John…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Parham v. J. R.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
- MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Barr Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Herro, McAndrews & Porter, S. C. v. GerhardtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- McMath v. City of GaryCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Markith Williams v. Christopher DieballCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
- Hydrite Chemical Co. v. Calumet Lubricants Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Love v. City of Chi.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 2019
- Cho v. Spinnaker Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2022
- Dewitt, Porter, Huggett, Schumacher & Morgan, S.C., Plaintiff-Third/party v. Robert J. Kovalic, Defendant-Third/party v. Fred Gants and Continental Casualty Company, Doing Business as Cna, Third/partyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.