Legal Opinion

Wolf v. Friedman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1969No. 69-156PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaft, C. J.

In the second cause of action of the amended petition, plaintiff alleges that, in order to induce plaintiff to expend further time and effort in the representation of defendant’s wife, defendant expressly promised plaintiff that defendant would be personally responsible for the payment of legal services rendered by plaintiff to defendant’s wife, and that those services were necessary and beneficial not only to defendant’s wife but also to defendant.

The second cause of action contains no allegations as to the reasonable value of any of the services, for the rendering of which recovery is…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Elder v. . RosenwasserNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
  2. Van DeRyt v. Van DeRytOhio Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Shelton v. PendletonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1847
  4. Conant v. BurnhamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
  5. Munson v. WashbandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. United States v. RogersDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1985
  2. Rand v. RandOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  3. United States v. IannielloDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1985
  4. Wilson Floors Co. v. Sciota Park, Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Spector v. SpectorCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972

11 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