Legal Opinion

McDermott v. McDermott

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 11, 1999No. 98-1169PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.

In this divorce case the central issue is whether an attorney’s contingency-fee agreements entered into during marriage are marital property under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-315 (Repl. 1998). The appellant, Mr. Harry McDermott, contends the trial court erred when it declared that certain contingency-fee agreements secured in conjunction with his law practice were marital property. We affirm the trial court’s decision as modified.

The parties were married in 1993 and separated in January 1998. At all relevant times, Mr. McDermott has been an attorney actively engaged…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. In Re Marriage of BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Mason v. FunderburkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
  3. Liles v. LilesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  4. Day v. DaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
  5. Sweeney v. SweeneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Farrell v. FarrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2006
  2. McKay v. McKaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
  3. Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. KosinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2011
  4. Kelly v. KellySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2011
  5. Gray v. GraySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003

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