TOLSON Et Al. v. SISTRUNK Et Al.

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing Eichholz, and holding that “[o]rigination or procurement of a case – in other words, rainmaking – is not a service by an attorney that confers value upon a client or that is rendered to or for the benefit of the client.”
• discussing Eichholz I, and holding that “[origination or procurement of a case — in other words, rainmaking — is not a service by an attorney that confers value upon a client or that is rendered to or for the benefit of the client”
• decisions of federal courts are not binding authority on this court, but their reasoning may be persuasive
• “courts may not constrict a subsection of [a] statute by engrafting upon it limitations the legislature has not enacted”
• “[C]ourts may not constrict a subsection of [a] statute by engrafting upon it limitations the legislature has not enacted.”
• “Particular words of statutes are not interpreted in isolation; instead, courts must construe a statute to give sensible and intelligent effect to all of its provisions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).