Legal Opinion
Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 27, 2005No. H027422PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
29 Cal.Rptr.3d 499 (2005)
129 Cal.App.4th 1076
LAW OFFICES OF DIXON R. HOWELL, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Michael W. VALLEY, Defendant and Appellant.
No. H027422.
Court of Appeal, Sixth District.
May 27, 2005.
Gordon J. Finwall, San Jose, Finwall Law Offices, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
John Michael O'Connor, Los Angeles, Law Offices of John Michael O'Connor, for Defendant and Appellant.
RUSHING, P.J.
The Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA), under Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq., provides a quick and inexpensive method for clients, at their option, to resolve fee disputes with…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Buss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- People v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Perez v. GrajalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Quevedo v. MACY'S, INC.District Court, C.D. California · 2011
- City of Oakland v. HasseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.