Kaushiva v. Hutter

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “an attorney who enters into a contingency fee agreement with his client, substantially performs, and is then prevented by his client from completing performance is entitled to the full amount specified in the fee agreement”
• holding that “an attorney who enters into a contingency fee agreement with his client, substantially performs, and is then prevented by his client from completing performance is entitled to the full amount specified in the fee agreement”
• finding that an attorney was entitled to the full amount of his fee when he was discharged without cause and thus “prevented by his client from completing performance”
• observing that the result in the case was “consistent with cases in other jurisdictions holding that where an attorney is discharged without cause and the client subsequently recovers, the attorney is entitled to the full amount of his fee”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).