Cruse v. O'QUINN

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that party “carried its summary-judgment burden to demonstrate as a matter of law that” agreement “is illegal and void as against the public policy of Texas as expressed in . . . the disciplinary rules”
• finding that disciplinary rules constitute an expression of Texas public policy on issue of fee-sharing agreements
• finding that disciplinary rules constitute an expression of Texas public policy on issue of fee-sharing agreements
• concluding the law firm’s contingent fee contract’s “termination fee provision violates public policy and is unconscionable as a matter of law”
• holding interpretation of fee-sharing agreement allowing former lawyer to receive fees was “illegal and void” because he was “prohibited from receiving fees on cases subject to the FSA that were not settled or otherwise finally resolved before” his license was suspended or he was disbarred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).