Legal Opinion

Padilla v. McClellan

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 19, 2001No. G027300PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RYLAARSDAM, J.

Objector Catherine M. Osier appeals from an order allocating attorney fees as part of a minor’s compromise. She contends the trial court had no jurisdiction to divide attorney fees between her and claimant G. John Jansen. She also maintains the court’s allocation of fees was improper under a theory of quantum meruit in that claimant’s services were of little or no benefit to the minor. The trial court did not err either in finding it had jurisdiction or in its fee allocation, and we affirm.

Facts

The parents of plaintiff Blake Padilla, a minor, executed a contingent fee…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. PLCM Group, Inc. v. DrexlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Goldberg v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  3. Martino v. DeneviCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  4. Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway Contractors, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  5. Bandy v. Mt. Diablo Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Wright Ex Rel. Wright v. WrightTennessee Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Falcone v. FykeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. Crawford v. AstrueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  4. Elite Show Services, Inc. v. Staffpro, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
  5. Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. GaramendiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

5 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