Legal Opinion
Sayble v. Feinman
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 4, 1978No. Civ. 50732PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BEACH, J.
Hill Sayble and Sayble and Raphael, a professional corporation, appeal from a judgment in favor of Frances Feinman construing the terms of payment in a contingent fee retainer agreement between appellant attorneys and respondent client.
Facts:
Respondent Frances Feinman retained appellant attorneys to represent her claims arising out of the wrongful death of her husband. The parties entered into an attorney retainer agreement drafted by appellants. The contract provides in relevant part: “Attorney(s) shall be paid 28‘A % of any money recovered in this matter ....” (Italics…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Berman v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1975
- Moss Development Co. v. GearyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Ecco-Phoenix Electric Corp. v. Howard J. White, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1969
- Milstein v. Security Pacific National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Aerojet-General Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Chinn v. KMR Property ManagementCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Heston v. Farmers Insurance GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Transamerica Insurance v. SaybleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- In Re Marriage of Garrity and BishtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.