Weiner v. Burr, Pease & Kurtz, P.C.
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CHRISTEN, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal involves a dispute over the modification of a law firm's contingent-fee agreement. The main questions presented are whether the modified contingent-fee agreement is valid and whether the court erred in construing the disputed phrase-"further substantial litigation"-to mean more than just in-court proceedings and filings. Because the modified fee agreement is valid and the superior court's interpretation of "further substantial litigation" was not erroneous, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the law firm. The issue of costs was not…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Rockstad v. EriksonAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
- Day v. a & G Construction Co., Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1974
- Wessells v. State, Department of HighwaysAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
- McMillan v. Anchorage Community HospitalAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
- Cook Schuhmann & Groseclose, Inc. v. Brown & Root, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2005
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Zamarello v. RegesAlaska Supreme Court · 2014
- Airline Support, Inc. v. ASM Capital II, L.P.Alaska Supreme Court · 2012
- Barstow v. Ingaldson Maasen & Fitzgerald, P.C. (In re Avery)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Alaska · 2011
- Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company Leeks Canyon, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company Elizabeth Lockhart and Kelly Lockhart, wife and husband v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company and Porter River Ranch, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability companyWyoming Supreme Court · 2014
- United States of America v. AHTNA Construction and Primary Products, LLCDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2021