MATTER OF DE GRAFF, FOY, CONWAY & HOLT-HARRIS v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
1DissentBreitel, J.
There is no doubt that this unhappy litigation over a lawyer’s fee reflects the not uncommon ingratitude of a client, despite attainment by eminent lawyers of a successful result, enthusiastically appreciated until the inevita*864ble bill for services had been rendered. Nor is there any disagreement in the court that the record would support the very fee awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, if, but only if, appropriate findings of fact had been made with conscious and reasoned application of controlling rules of law. Instead, the essential findings are absent, and…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Walls v. . BaileyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Jules E. Angoff v. Bernard Goldfine, Harold Brown v. Bernard GoldfineCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1959
- Hopper v. . SageNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- People Ex Rel. Parklin Operating Corp. v. MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
- Meagher v. KavliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.