Legal Opinion

Mulholland v. Kerns

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 11, 1993No. 92-1230PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

YOHN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs brought this suit, seeking declaratory relief and damages arising from their attorney-client relationship with defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants received portions of contingent fees to which they were not entitled, and they seek to have them returned. In addition, plaintiffs contend that defendant Kerns was terminated for good and just cause, and they seek a declaratory judgment that' defendants are therefore not entitled to any further attorneys’ fees. Alternatively, the plaintiffs ask that, if the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Fracasse v. BrentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. LaRocca EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  3. GILMORE BY GILMORE v. DonderoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Sundheim v. Beaver County Building & Loan Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  5. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfee, Rounick, & CabotSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Jones v. MacKey Price Thompson & OstlerUtah Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Labrum & Doak v. Brown (In Re Labrum & Doak, LLP)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Shenecqua Butt v. United BrotherhoodCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2021
  4. Boring v. Google, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. In Re NixonUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008

13 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