Sentco, Inc. v. McCulloh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 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. “Although parties to an action may, in the absence of fraud and collusion, settle and adjust the same without the intervention of their attorneys, yet this right does not justify clients in perpetrating a fraud on their attorneys. `The rule that courts look with favor upon a compromise and settlement made by the parties to a suit, to prevent the vexation and expense of further litigation, only applies where all the rights and interests of all of the parties concerned, both legal and equitable, have been respected and observed in good faith. Where the parties negotiate a settlement for the purpose of defrauding the attorney in the collection of his fees, the court will grant such relief as the circumstances of the case may warrant.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ingalsbe v. Stewart Agency, Inc. · 892 So. 2d 501 - Ellis Rubin, PA v. Alarcon

2. “At the hearing on the suggestion of defendant's counsel that the suit should be dismissed because of the settlement agreement, counsel for plaintiff opposed the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the settlement agreement was fraudulently made to deprive plaintiff's counsel of a substantial attorneys' fee and on the further ground that `plaintiff's counsel are entitled to a fee assessed against defendants as damages for defendants' willful and deliberate acts of unfair competition.' Their motion to continue the prosecution of the cause for the purpose of recovering their attorneys' fee was denied, and the cause dismissed. This appeal by plaintiff's counsel, in the name of the plaintiff, followed. The sole point for determination here is whether the lower court erred in declining to continue the prosecution of the suit, as requested by plaintiff's counsel. We find no error here.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 976 So. 2d 688 - Manzini & Associates, Pa v. Bso

3. “required to hazard the outcome of litigation, rather than settle the suit, simply because his attorneys [were] employed on a contingent fee basis.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ingalsbe v. Stewart Agency, Inc.