Legal Opinion

Hendricks v. Sefton

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 29, 1960No. Civ. 18583PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PAULSEN, J. pro tem. *

On the 20th of January, 1956, appellant herein was injured in an automobile accident. She employed respondent, an attorney at law, to represent her in an attempt to recover compensation for the damages suffered. On the 5th of April, 1956, appellant and respondent entered into an attorney’s retainer agreement. By it appellant empowered respondent to effect a compromise or to bring suit, and agreed to pay him one-third of the amount recovered, respondent to advance necessary disbursements and costs. Respondent was also given the right to a lien for the amount due him under…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Estate of Bristol v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Dillard v. McKnightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance v. KinslerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Gage v. AtwaterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Carlson, Collins, Gordon & Bold v. BanducciCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  2. Hansen v. JacobsenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  3. Hendricks v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. Fivey v. ChambersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  5. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Metrim Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1960

3 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