Skip to main content
· 5/30/1962

Dow Chemical Company v. Benton

Citations

  • 357 S.W.2d 565
  • 163 Tex. 477
  • 5 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 391
  • 1962 Tex. LEXIS 710

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the attorney-client relationship is one of principal and agent and that neither lawyer nor client should be permitted to select the good features of his contract and reject the bad
  • holding that “so long as the existing agency relationship is not terminated, as by the opposite party’s buying out the client’s interest, the attorney must be bound by that election”
  • noting that attorney = s and client = s rights are A necessarily dependent upon and inseparably interwoven with the other. @
  • stating that an attorney’s interest in a contin gency fee contract becomes independent at the severing of the agency relationship
  • emphasizing that the attorney-client relationship is one of principal and agent, the Court rejected the notion that an attorney with a contingent-fee contract would be “akin to a coplaintiff”
  • explaining that the attorney-client relationship is one of principal and agent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Greenhill

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.