Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 W. Va. 730 - Bass v. Coltelli-Rose

207 W. Va. 730 - Bass v. Coltelli-Rose’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner · 174 W. Va. 494 - Committee on Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. Blair · 176 W. Va. 190 - Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pitrolo

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Unfortunately, the majority deemed it unnecessary to engage in discussion of the reasonableness or excessiveness of the fee charged... It is clear to me that these fees should have been found to be excessive. Basically, [the lawyer] charged and received an exorbitant amount of attorney’s fees for collecting medical payments coverage under a contract which was not in dispute and which was paid by the insurer without major controversy. Not only is the contingent fee in this case unreasonable, it is potentially unethical as well. Rule 1.5 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, which governs attorney’s fees in general, dictates what elements comprise a reasonable fee for the provision of professional legal services[.] Under the[] rules of professional conduct, as well as the standards enunciated by this Court interpreting those rules, the contingent fee charged by [the lawyer] is excessive, unreasonable, and, at a minimum, raises the question that said fee might be unethical as well. Not only was the time, labor, legal skills and experience put forth by [the lawyer] to receive the medical payment proceeds de minimis, at best; but, the fee was simply not based upon any contingent event.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.