Legal Opinion
Dukes v. Matheny
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided February 23, 2004No. 2002 CA 0652PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
|2PARRO, j.
In this case concerning a fee dispute between two attorneys, one attorney appeals from the trial court judgment on the principal demand that divided equally a contingent fee between him and the other attorney based on an oral fee-sharing agreement. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court on the principal demand is reversed.
Facts and Procedural History
Attorneys James A. Dukes (Dukes) and Gordon W. Matheny (Matheny) enjoyed a close personal and professional relationship for fifteen or more years. For many years, Dukes shared Matheny’s office space, a secretary,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1979
- McCann v. ToddSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1943
- Duer & Taylor v. BLANCHARD, WALKER, ETC.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1978
- Scurto v. SiegristLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1992
- Brown v. SeimersLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Chimneywood Homeowners Ass'n v. Eagan Insurance Agency, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2011
- Ike Spears v. William W. HallLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2025
- Ike Spears v. William W. HallSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2026
- Robert L. Manard III PLC v. Falcon Law Firm PLCLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2012
- USA, ex. rel., William St. John LaCorte, M.D. v. WyethDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2023