Legal Opinion

Skannal v. Jones Odom Davis & Politz, L.L.P.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided September 25, 2013No. Nos. 48,016-CW, 48,017-CWPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCaraway, J.

Lin this dispute over the validity of an attorney-client fee contract, the clients claim that the fee contract obligated them to pay the attorneys hourly fees throughout the course of extensive litigation to recover their family’s property and mineral rights. Despite the clients’ payment of considerable hourly fees over three years during such litigation, the attorneys then elected a one-third contingency fee under the terms of an additional option extended to them in the fee contract. With this suit, the clients assert as a matter of law that the fee arrangement with the attorneys, *503affording…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1979
  2. Leenerts Farms, Inc. v. RogersSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1982
  3. King v. Illinois National InsuranceSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2009
  4. O'ROURKE v. CairnsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1996
  5. Meunier v. BernichLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1936

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. J-W Operating Co. v. OlsenLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2014
  2. In re Coop. Endeavor Agreement Between 42nd Dist. Indigent Defender Office & 42nd Judicial District Office of Dist. AttorneyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2018
  3. Data-Core Systems, Inc. v. PVR America Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. Skannal v. Jones, Odom, Davis & Politz, L.L.P.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API