Legal Opinion

Meyers v. Handlon

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided June 20, 1985No. 3-584A130PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STATON, Presiding Judge.

Goldman and Handlon brought this action to enforce their contingency attorney fee contract. The amount of their attorney fees was contingent upon the value of the property settlement obtained for Mrs. Meyers in her dissolution action. A partial summary judgment was granted by the trial court which eliminated Mrs. Meyers' affirmative defense that a contingency attorney fee contract in a dissolution action is against public policy, void, and unenforceable. She appeals from the granting of this partial summary judgment.

The sole issue for our review is whether contingency…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Anderson v. AndersonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. Kahf v. Charleston South ApartmentsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Guenard v. BurkeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  4. Baskerville v. BaskervilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
  5. McInerney v. Massasoit Greyhound Association, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ross v. DeLorenzoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  2. In Re JarvisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API