Legal Opinion
Friedman v. Harris
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided November 25, 1946No. 9231PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Per curiam
Appellee Harris was seriously injured by alleged negligence of appellee Washington Terminal Company. Harris afterwards signed an agreement to employ appellant Friedman as her attorney and to pay him one-third of “the sum allowed or recovered.” Appellant filed suit for Harris against the Terminal Company, which answered. Other attorneys, Kamerow and Doherty, moved on behalf of Harris to dismiss the suit, on the ground that Friedman was not authorized to file it. Appellant opposed this motion and also moved for leave to intervene in the suit. Depositions and affidavits which were filed make it…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Farrall v. District of Columbia Amateur Athletic UnionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1946
- Woodbury v. Andrew Jergens Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Kellogg v. WinchellDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1921
- Jacobsen v. JacobsenCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Continental Casualty Co. v. KellyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Monarch Life Insurance Company v. Martha S. ElamCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
- Elam v. Monarch Life Insurance Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- In Re WallerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re Hoy's ClaimDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1950
- A. v. Falcone and R. K. Millstein v. Josef Washington HallCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1956
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.