Legal Opinion

Redd v. Hill

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 2013No. 20120552PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Justice PARRISH,

opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

11 At issue in this appeal is the question of whether a contingency fee agreement extends to an award of attorney fees. Appellant Virginia Hill entered into a contingency fee agreement (Agreement) with attorney and Appellee Don Redd. The Agreement stated, in part, that "Attorney is entitled to ONE THIRD (88 1/838%) of all monies paid to or in client[']s behalf for what ever [sic] cause related to this cause of action." Hill does not dispute that she willingly signed the Agreement or that Redd is entitled to one-third of Hill's primary award.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. WebBank v. American General Annuity Service Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Daines v. VincentUtah Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Zions First National Bank, N.A. v. National American Title Insurance Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass'nUtah Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Softsolutions, Inc. v. Brigham Young UniversityUtah Supreme Court · 2000

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Porenta v. PorentaUtah Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Danny's Drywall v. Labor CommissionCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2014
  3. Pang v. International Document ServicesUtah Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Bresee v. BartonCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2016
  5. Linebaugh v. GibsonCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2020

12 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