Legal Opinion

Tidball v. Hetrick

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1985No. 14525PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HENDERSON, Justice.

ACTION

This is an appeal by the defendants, La-Von W. Hetrick, Pierre Hetrick, and Tana Hetrick Hooten, from a judgment of the trial court holding that plaintiff, Keith A. Tidball, was entitled to recover attorney fees in accordance with a written contract for legal services. Farmers State Bank of Winner is not an appellant. We affirm.

FACTS

This was a court trial. Appellant-defendant LaVon Hetrick was an income beneficiary of twenty-five percent of her father A.J. Williams’ estate. LaVon’s children, Pierre Hetrick and Tana Hetrick Hooten, were residual beneficiaries of their…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of HobelsbergerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Thomas v. Turner's Adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1890
  3. Egan v. BurnightSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Estate of Williams v. WilliamsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1974
  5. McFarland v. HiltsleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1918

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Williams v. WaldmanNevada Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Poyzer v. McGrawSupreme Court of Iowa · 1985
  3. In Re the Proceedings for Deposit in the Court of Monies and/or Trust Assets of the Equivalent Value of Approximately $45,877.68South Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  4. McAdam v. DynesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API