Legal Opinion

A. Fred Miller v. Purvis

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1996No. S-6679PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

A. Fred Miller, a professional corporation (Miller), represented Mary Jane Purvis in a divorce case and charged her $34,914.50 in fees, $1,017.61 for expenses, $4,596.97 in interest, and $1,624.97 in sales tax. Purvis invoked the mandatory fee arbitration provisions of Alaska Bar Rules 34-42. Prior to the hearing, Purvis had paid Miller $17,-017.01 and Miller had reduced its fee by $6,200; Miller claimed that Purvis still owed $24,924.64. The arbitration panel concluded that “a reasonable fee payment would have been $8,500 and that [Miller] should be required to repay…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  3. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Dorchy v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1924

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Maynard v. BrandonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Baxley v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Kodiak Island Borough v. MahoneyAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Nodvin v. State Bar of GeorgiaSupreme Court of Georgia · 2001
  5. DeNardo v. ABC Inc. RVs MotorhomesAlaska Supreme Court · 2002

10 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