Legal Opinion
Howell v. Kelly
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided March 4, 1976No. 16637PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COLEMAN, Chief Justice.
This is a suit by an attorney to recover in quantum meruit for the legal services rendered to the defendant. The services were rendered pursuant to a contingent fee agreement, which was terminated by the client. The trial court entered a judgment on a jury verdict for the attorney. We affirm.
No statement of facts was brought forward to this court. In answer to the special issues submitted, the jury found that the client terminated the services of the attorney without the attorney’s consent and that the attorney should recover the sum of $800.00 for the legal services…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fracasse v. BrentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Hearne v. GarrettTexas Supreme Court · 1878
- Guilbeau v. Fireman's Fund Insurance CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1974
- Thompson v. SmithTexas Commission of Appeals · 1923
- D. & R. Meade v. RutledgeTexas Supreme Court · 1853
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Baldwin v. Sisters of Providence in Washington, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
- Koch Oil Co. v. Wilber, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)1995
- Hassell Const. Co., Inc. v. Stature Commercial Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2005
- Rocha v. Ahmad, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1984
- Koch Industries, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Sun Company, Inc., Cross-Appellees, and Champlin Refining & Chemicals, Inc., Defendant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.