Plumlee v. Paddock

How courts have described this case

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

• stating appellant’s ignorance that referral contract was illegal was “simply irrelevant” and refusing to enforce contract
• refusing equitable relief where owner of ambulance company had no basis to recover under fee-sharing agreement with attorney without reliance on unlawful barratry agreement
• affirming trial court summary judgment for appellee because alleged contract was illegal and void against public policy and providing, among other things “courts generally will not lend their equity powers to enforcing contracts which violate sound public policy”
• “Plumlee cannot prove the existence of a contract, nor his right to recover, without proving his own illegal conduct in entering a barratry contract”
• “Plumlee cannot prove the existence of a contract, nor his right to recover, without proving his own illegal conduct in entering a barratry contract.”
• setting forth three possible exceptions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).