Sobieski v. Maresco’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The principal issue presented by this appeal is the validity of a contingent fee agreement in a matrimonial action. Neither counsel, in their excellent briefs, nor this court, by independent research, have discovered any Florida decision directly on this point. It does appear, however, that a number of other jurisdictions have passed on the validity of such an agreement and have almost universally declared such employment contracts void. The chancellor's decree, here under review, is in accord with the majority opinion that attorneys' contingent fee employment contracts in matrimonial actions are against public policy and therefore unenforceable. See: McCarthy v. Santangelo (1951), 137 Conn. 410 , 78 A.2d 240 ; In re Fisher (1958), 15 Ill.2d 139 , 153 N.E.2d 832 ; Dannenberg v. Dannenberg (1940), 151 Kan. 600 , 100 P.2d 667 ; Baskerville v. Baskerville (1956), 246 Minn. 496 , 75 N.W.2d 762 ; State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Jensen (1960), 171 Neb. 1 , 105 N.W.2d 459 ; In re Smith (1953), 42 Wash.2d 188 , 254 P.2d 464 ; 5 Am.Jur., Attorneys at Law, § 166; 30 A.L.R. 189 . There appears to be no good reason why Florida should not join those states which hold such agreements void and unenforceable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Avant v. Whitten