Legal Opinion

Elliott v. Joyce

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided November 7, 1994No. 93SC528PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott

We granted certiorari in Joyce v. Elliott, 857 P.2d 549 (Colo.App.1993), to decide whether our rules of procedure governing contingent fee agreements prohibit recovery in quantum meruit by an attorney from a former client, without express provision in the contingent fee agreement. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment enforcing an attorney’s lien in favor of James E. Elliott, Jr., an attorney, against Mr. Elliott’s client, James Joyce. Because the contingent fee agreement did not contain a statement indicating the client would be liable to pay compensation to the attorney…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Covington v. RhodesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Denver Joint Stock Land Bank v. MarkhamSupreme Court of Colorado · 1940
  3. Green Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. FarberSupreme Court of Colorado · 1986
  4. Bowman v. ReyburnSupreme Court of Colorado · 1946
  5. Hensel v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Dudding v. Norton Frickey & AssociatesSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
  2. Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Liebert Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
  3. Feiger, Collison & Killmer v. JonesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  4. Melat, Pressman & Higbie, L.L.P. v. Hannon Law Firm, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2012
  5. Brody v. HellmanColorado Court of Appeals · 2007

20 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