DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 373 So. 2d 102.

183 citing documents.

  • Ike Spears v. William W. Hall La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    at p. 15, 57 So.3d at 1152 (quoting Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prods, Inc., ); see also Fox v. Heiser, 03-1964 (La.
  • Marcus Hebert v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    “[a] contingent fee contract is a contract for legal services in which the attorney’s fee depends upon success in the enforcement of the client’s claim.” The Petition for Intervention was filed on January 16, 2020, which was well in advance of the settlement negotiated by the Bart Bernard firm
  • Louise Kaltenbaugh, ph.D. and Katherine Robinson, ph.D. v. Board of Supervisors, Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
    Brown, 2013-1375, p. 2, 135 So.3d at 1193 (citing Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prods., Inc., (La.
  • James K Fawvor v. Edmund E. Caswell, III. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    See also Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • In Re: Judge Johnell M. Matthews Baton Rouge City Court East Baton Rouge Parish State Of Louisiana Judiciary … La. 2022
    Singer, Hutner, Levine, 114 n.3 (La.1979) (Calogero, J., On Rehearing) (Dennis, J., dissenting from the opinion on original hearing); Hargrave, The Judiciary Article of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, 37 La.L.Rev.
  • James Davis v. Zurich American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    1 Thus, we will undertake a brief review of the law on determining the method of reimbursement to be used in cases where more than one attorney has been discharged (with and without cause) and another retained.2 The seminal case regarding the award of attorney fees is Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., in which it was made clear that in a case where an attorney has been discharged without cause, the contingency fee contract would be the basis for determining the fee rather than quantum merui
  • Mathes Brierre Architects, a Professional Corporation v. karlton/isg Enterprises, LLC, International Sales Group, LLC, and J.S. Karlton Company, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
  • State of Louisiana v. Kee Food, Inc. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
    See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., ( La.
  • Dodson & Hooks, APLC v. The Louisiana Community Development Capital Fund, Inc. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products,, Inc., ( La.
  • Duhe v. DCR Indus. Servs., Inc. 267 So. 3d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prod., Inc., , 105 (La.
  • Law Office of John D. Sileo, LLC v. Kruse 239 So. 3d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    claim for attorney fees and cost asserted via intervention in the main demand by the attorney discharged by his former client with cause against the successor attorney, the Supreme Court held that in cases of discharge with cause of an attorney retained on contingency, the trial court should determine the amount of the fee according to the rule set forth in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
  • Monsanto Co. v. KT Farms P'ship 245 So. 3d 191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    Monsanto maintains that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the award and properly applied the factors in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc. , , on reh'g (La.
  • Gillio v. Hanover American Insurance Co. 212 So. 3d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
  • Moe v. Allstate Insurance Co. 191 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    The Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted this statute in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., on reh’g (June 25, 1979)," which involvéd a discharged attorney seeking his fee.
  • Galloway Jefcoat, LLP v. D. Patrick (Rick") Keating " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 2/9/11), this court conducted a de novo review to address an argument made by the appellant that the trial court failed to properly use the quantum meruit approach as directed by the supreme court on rehearing in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., and by the supreme court in O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), to properly divide fees between successive attorneys representing a client.
  • Galloway Jefcoat, LLP v. Keating 138 So. 3d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 2/9/11) , , this court conducted a de novo re *792 view to address an argument made by the appellant that the trial court failed to properly use the quantum meruit approach as directed by the supreme court on rehearing in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., and by the supreme court in O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), , to properly divide fees between successive attorneys representing a client.
  • In re Cortigene 144 So. 3d 915 La. 2014
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 115 (La.1979); LSBA v. Connolly, 201 La.
  • Skannal v. Jones Odom Davis & Politz, L.L.P. 124 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 115 (La.197[8]); LSBA v. Connolly, 201 La.
  • St. Pierre v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. 102 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
    87:218 in the following trio of cases: Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Calk v. Highland Constr.
  • Randy N. Tran v. Charles E. Williams, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Sessions argues in brief that the supreme court case of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., mandates this court to find that Congressman Cao be added as a party to the proceedings.
  • Tran v. Williams 56 So. 3d 1224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Sessions argues in brief that the supreme court case of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., mandates this court to find that Congressman Cao be added as a party to the proceedings.
  • Chimneywood Homeowners Ass'n v. Eagan Insurance Agency, Inc. 57 So. 3d 1142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    (on rehearing)(citing La.
  • Lake Charles Memorial Hospital v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 108 So. 3d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Lake Charles Memorial Hospital (Stephen Babin) v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    See, Hutner Levine Seeman & Stuart v. La.
  • Carolyn Sanchez v. Louisiana Nursery La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Co., -70 (La.1979) (footnotes omitted), stated: As we determined in Saucier [v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., ], statutes which tend to impede or frustrate this Court’s constitutionally imposed judicial authority in connection with disciplinary proceedings and regulations of attorney’s law practice will not be approved.
  • Sanchez v. Louisiana Nursery 34 So. 3d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Co., -70 (La.1979) (footnotes omitted), stated: As we determined in Saucier [v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., ], statutes which tend to impede or frustrate this Court’s constitutionally imposed judicial authority in connection with disciplinary proceedings and regulations of attorney’s law practice will not be approved.
  • Verges v. DIMENSION DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. 32 So. 3d 310 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
    The trial court found that the standard set forth in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., does not apply in this case.
  • Earl Ware v. Troy M. Vaughn La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Pursuant to Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the factors set forth in Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct are the basis for determining fee allocation.
  • In Re Curry 16 So. 3d 1139 La. 2009
    Citing Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the committee found the 1996 fee agreement, which respondents characterized as a "hybrid fee agreement," did not satisfy the requirements for a contingency fee agreement because it was not dependent on the outcome of the client's claim, nor did the attorney bear the same risk of loss as the client.
  • Teague v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 10 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    17 In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the supreme court recognized that its authority con *823 ferred by the Louisiana Constitution to regulate the practice of law “stems from the grant of original exclusive jurisdiction of disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar.” However, it went further to proclaim that because the disciplinary
  • Needom v. Robein 7 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., -10 (La.1978) (on rehearing) (Dennis, Tate, and Calogero, J.J., dissenting); Succ.
  • Meadowcrest Professional Building Partnership v. Toursarkissian 1 So. 3d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    This procedure was contrary to the holding in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Caldwell v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVS. 991 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
  • Caldwell v. State ex rel. Department of Social Services, Office of Community Services 991 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Clegg v. USAGENCIES INS. CO. 985 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    See Scott, 377 So.2d at 70-71 ; Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., -18 (La.1979) (on rehearing); Salley & Salley, 2003-807 at pp. 6-7; 864 So.2d at 703 ; (La.App.
  • Mitchell v. Bradford 961 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Dennis and Trudi Kraut v. New Hampshire Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    APPORTIONMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES Pursuant to Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., on rehearing (La.1979), a client only has to pay one contingency fee which is to be allocated among the attorneys handling a claim on the basis of the factors set forth in Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which provide in part: (a) A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or
  • Concursus Proceeding in Breach of Contract & Inequitable Attorneys Fee-Split Levert v. Martinez 939 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    gnment of error, plaintiff argues that: The trial court erred in granting the exception of improper venue as to Fernandez, Seemann and the Partnership, where the cause of action being asserted by Levert against these defendants involves a[sic] attorneys fee contingency dispute, which requires the joinder of all attorneys involved as parties necessary to a and it progeny, where one of the defendants is a resident and domiciliary of Jefferson Parish, the parish in which suit was filed, and the def
  • Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC v. Cole 929 So. 2d 1224 La. 2006
    See, e.g., Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prods., Inc., (on rehearing) (“But the Disciplinary Rule implicitly recognizing the client’s absolute right to discharge his at *1228 torney is stripped of effect if the client’s exercise of that right is conditioned upon his payment of the full amount specified in the contract.”).
  • Cox v. Boggs 899 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    (on rehearing); O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), .
  • Hoag v. State 889 So. 2d 1019 La. 2004
    Singer, Hutner, Levine, , 114 n. 3 (La.1979).
  • Kenneth Michael Wright v. Darryl J. Tschirn La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Quoting Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the trial judge then observed: It seems to me that if the lawyer can keep earned fees that have been paid in advance, he can collect fees under a contingent agreement once recovery has been made, “apportioned according to the respective services and contributions of the
  • Wright v. Tschirn 875 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Quoting Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the trial judge then observed: It seems to me that if the lawyer can keep earned fees that have been paid in advance, he can collect fees under a contingent agreement once recovery has been made, “apportioned according to the respective services and contributions of the attorneys for work performed and
  • Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell v. Granger 870 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    The Gold firm does not cite any case other than Harris and the broad principles outlined in Chittenden and Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., to support their contention that a jury cannot try a suit seeking recovery of attorney fees.
  • Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell v. Tommie Mack Granger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    The Gold firm does not cite any case other than Harris and the broad principles outlined in Chittenden and Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc. , to support their contention that a jury cannot try a suit seeking recovery of attorney fees.
  • Barham & Arceneaux v. Kozak 874 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See, e.g., Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prod., Inc., O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), .
  • Hall v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 868 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Dukes v. Matheny 878 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See Matter of P & E Boat Rentals, Inc., 928 F.2d at 664 ; Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Keaty v. Raspanti 866 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    We find that the Keatys did not reasonably rely on Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., in asserting a claim against Raspanti.
  • Explained In Re Jones 859 So. 2d 666 La. 2003