Legal Opinion
Compton v. Kittleson
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided November 9, 2007No. S-12175PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRYNER, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
Attorney Nicholas Kittleson filed a consumer protection action against an Anchorage used car dealership on behalf of Danilo and Angelita Nelvis. Kittleson represented the Nelvises under a "hybrid" fee agreement that called for Kittleson to receive a contingent fee unless the Nelvises settled the case "for an amount that will pay less than $175.00 per hour for the time [Kittleson] invest[ed]" in the case; in that event, the Nelvises would be required to pay Kittleson a fee based on the $175 hourly rate. Before trial the Nelvises turned down a $25,000…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- City of Burlington v. DagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- Matter of CoopermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Aflac, Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nehad v. MukaseyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Weiner v. Burr, Pease & Kurtz, P.C.Alaska Supreme Court · 2009
- Barstow v. Ingaldson Maasen & Fitzgerald, P.C. (In re Avery)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Alaska · 2011
- Rawshan Nehad v. MukaseyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008