· 7/23/1982
Cardenas v. Ramsey County
Citations
- 322 N.W.2d 191
- 31 A.L.R. 4th 89
- 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1662
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing the word “recovered” could support more than one interpretation with respect to timing issues
- interpreting the language of a contingent fee agreement in light of the drafting attorney’s fiduciary status
- contingency fee contract entitling attorney to percentage of “total amount recovered” is ambiguous in light of structured settlement and must be interpreted to require payment to attorney only as client receives payments
- same as to a percentage of “the total amount recovered”
- applying a similar rule to a contingent fee agreement
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Otis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.