Legal Opinion
Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 17, 2009No. D052463PublishedCited by 66 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
AARON, J.
I
INTRODUCTION
In January 2004, Attorney William K. Dietz filed this action against Meisenheimer & Herron and Meisenheimer, Herron & Steele (Meisenheimer). In his complaint, Dietz alleged that he referred a bad faith insurance litigation matter involving Vital Services Company Inc. (Vital) to Meisenheimer. Dietz further alleged that Meisenheimer breached an agreement between Meisenheimer and Dietz to pay Dietz 25 percent of any contingency fee that Meisenheimer might receive in the Vital matter. Dietz contended that he suffered damages in excess of $260,000 as a result of this…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2000
- Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Benach v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. PaladinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & LackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- People v. LandauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Chicago Title Insurance v. AMZ Insurance Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
- Rickley v. GoodfriendCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Hi-Desert Medical Center v. DouglasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.