Legal Opinion

Gosnell Ex Rel. Gosnell v. Hilliard

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 11, 1933PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

An attorney who is retained generally to conduct a legal proceeding enters into an entire contract to follow the proceeding to its termination, and hence cannot abandon the service of his client without sufficient cause and without giving proper notice of his purpose. Branch v. Walker, 92 N. C., 87; Ladd v. Teague, 126 N. C., 544; Newkirk v. Stevens, 152 N. C., 498; United States v. Curry, 6 How., 106, 12 L. Ed., 363; Tenny v. Berger, 93 N. Y., 524, 45 A. L. R., 263. Weeks states the rule as follows: “An attorney who undertakes the conduct of an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. CurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1848
  2. Tenney v. . BergerNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
  3. Branch v. . WalkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  4. Gooch v. PeeblesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  5. Morrison v. . McDonaldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Central Cab Co. v. ClarkeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1970
  2. Smith v. BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  3. Adger v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Perkins v. SykesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  5. Roediger v. . SaposSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

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