Legal Opinion

Hammond v. TJ Litle and Co., Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided December 16, 1992No. Civ. A. 88-2450-KPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KEETON, District Judge.

Hill & Barlow, Michael D. Weisman, and Robert A. Bertsche (collectively, “Hill & Barlow”) counsel for plaintiff Scott P. Hammond (“Hammond”), have moved for leave to withdraw, alleging that Hammond failed to cooperate and disregarded fee obligations to the firm. Hammond opposes the motion. *

For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that Hill & Barlow must be permitted to withdraw.

I. Introduction

The opposing evidentiary submissions and the findings and conclusions to be drawn from them are sharply contested.

Hammond retained Hill & Barlow in August…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
  2. Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
  3. Commonwealth v. RomanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Stair v. CalhounDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2010
  2. JMB Manufacturing, Inc. v. Harrison Manufacturing, LLC.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
  3. Goldstein v. Albert (In Re Albert)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2002
  4. Kingdom v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995
  5. Danvers Savings Bank v. Cuddy (In Re Cuddy)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 2005

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