Cited by

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

183 citing documents.

Hanks v. COLUMBIA WOMEN'S AND CHILD. HOSP. 865 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Although the statute provides the attorney an interest in his client's claim, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Saucier v. Hayes *748 Dairy Products, Inc., (on rehearing), held "the nature of that interest is not established by the provisions of the statute."
Patton v. Lemoine 847 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Citing Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., and O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), , we held that since the maximum contingency fee contract signed with any of the attorneys was for 40 percent, the attorney fee award could not exceed 40 percent.
In Re Succession of Bankston 844 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Law Offices of Robert M. Becnel v. Ancale 829 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Gilbert v. Evan 822 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
He also cites the "seminal case" concerning contingency fee contracts for attorneys discharged without cause, Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Walker v. STATE, DOTD 817 So. 2d 57 La. 2002
See Leenerts Farms, Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Husk v. Blancand, 155 La.
Town of Mamou v. Fontenot 816 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prods., Inc., (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
Boutte v. ABC Insurance Companies 811 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
1 Cir.1986) The fee should be apportioned between the attorneys “according to the respective services and contributions of the attorneys for work performed and other relevant factors.” Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
Francis v. Hotard 798 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (on rehearing).
Chittenden v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 788 So. 2d 1140 La. 2001
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 115 (La.197[8]); LSBA v. Connolly, 201 La.
Turner v. Dr. X 787 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the supreme court determined that when a client is represented by more than one attorney during the litigation of a claim and has signed contingency fee contracts with more than one attorney, the client is only obligated to pay one contingency fee, which is: to be determined according to the highest ethical
In Re Jones 787 So. 2d 271 La. 2001
(on rehearing), for the proposition that in cases where an attorney is discharged and a subsequent attorney is hired, the client should be exposed to no more than one contingency fee.
Keaty v. Raspanti 781 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
We find that the Keatys did not reasonably rely on Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., in asserting a claim against Raspanti.
Patton v. Lemoine 776 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
In determining the fee a plaintiff was obligated to pay his attorney who was discharged without cause, the Louisiana Supreme Court held in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., : Considering the peculiar nature of the contingency fee contract, its social importance, and its potential for abuse as well, in light of our duty to enforce the Disciplinary Rules, we conclude that only one contingency fee should be paid by the client, the amount of the fee to be determined according t
Classic Imports, Inc. v. Singleton 765 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
In that case, the court reaffirmed the holding in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., on rehearing, that under those circumstances, the amount of the fee is determined by the highest ethical contingency percentage to which the client contractually agreed in any of the contingency fee contracts which he executed.
Explained Town of Mamou v. Fontenot 756 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
However, as explained in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., while La.R.S.
National Information Services v. Gottsegen 737 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Brown v. Seimers 726 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Policy reasons dictate a quantum meruit approach to fee determination in a Saucier [v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., ] situation, where a number of attorneys independently enter single representation of a sole client.
Warner v. Carimi Law Firm 725 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Appellant avers that it is now established law in Louisiana that all cases involving the discharge of counsel require the balancing of the eight factors set forth in Saucier v.Hayes Dairy Products Inc., and Rule 1.5(a).
Rice v. Cummings 716 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
This is not a situation as in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., where one of the attorneys was discharged by the client, making it appropriate to assess the fees on a quantum meruit basis.
Robinson v. Thornton 705 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court held where a party to a contingency fee agreement discharges his attorney before the fee is earned the attorney's mandate is revoked, the contract is dissolved and quantum meruit provides the proper basis for recovery.
Osborne v. Vulcan Foundry, Inc. 699 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that in a case involving two attorneys with separate contingency fee contracts with the client, one attorney having been discharged (without "cause") and the subsequent attorney having brought the case to judgment or settlement, the contingency fee is to be apportioned accor
Keaty v. Raspanti 695 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
In support, they rely on the pronouncements of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
James Minge & Associates v. HANOVER INS. 692 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
To the extent that the new attorney collects the entire fee he owes an accounting and payment to the original attorney for that portion of the fee to which he is entitled under the Saucier [v. Hayes Dairy Prods., Inc., (La.
O'ROURKE v. Cairns 683 So. 2d 697 La. 1996
Relying on this court's pronouncement in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the trial judge relegated Belsome to a quantum meruit recovery.
Ferguson v. West Jefferson Levee District Board of Commissioners 685 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
5th Cir. (11/28/95) , this court reaffirmed the holding of Saucier, v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., that whether the former attorney was fired for cause is an issue properly before the trial court for inquiry.
Gegenheimer v. Cajun Painting, Inc. 689 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg.
Alco Collections, Inc. v. Poirier 680 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
-99 (La.1989); Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (Dennis, J. dissenting from opinion on original hearing).
Martin v. David 685 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
NOTES [1] See also, Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., : Compliance with the statute would result in the creation of a cause of action against the client and the opposing party' for such a fee as is legal and is earned in the event a settlement or other disposition results without the consent of the lawyer.
O'ROURKE v. Cairns 666 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Relying on the landmark case of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the intervenor argues that it is no longer necessary for a trial court to determine whether an attorney employed under a contingency fee contract has been discharged for cause.
First National Bank of Jefferson Parish v. Keyworth 670 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Such a result would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as the Supreme Court’s holding in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Syrie v. Schilab 664 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1 Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
In Re Tutor. of Property of Huddleston 655 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Leenert's Farms, abrogated on other grounds by Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Midboe v. Com'n on Ethics for Pub. Empl. 646 So. 2d 351 La. 1994
Const. art. 5, § 5(B) ("The supreme court has exclusive original jurisdiction of disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar.") Id.; Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., on rehearing (June 25, 1979); Singer Hutner Levine, Etc. v. La.
Davidson v. Broadhead 649 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
The Louisiana Supreme Court in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., said that: *483 “Under our rules an attorney clearly may contract with a client to provide legal ser- .
Gordon v. Levet 643 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Each law firm received $45,294, from which the Andry law firm has appealed contending the trial court erred in its application of the directives of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products of Louisiana, Inc.
State in Interest of AC 643 So. 2d 719 La. 1994
765, 793-94; Singer Hunter Levine Seeman & and Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (Dennis, J., dissenting from the opinion on original hearing).
Reis v. Fenasci & Smith 635 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.App.
Leydecker v. Leininger 633 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prods., Inc., (on reh’g).
Minge v. Weeks 629 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Because he entered into a contingency contract in his personal injury suit, the division of attorney fees shall be made in accordance with Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (on rehearing).
Miller & Miller v. Home Insurance Co. 625 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
“According to Saucier vs. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., compliance with the statute would result in the creation of a cause of action against the client and the opposing party for such fee as is legal and is earned in the event settlement or other disposition takes place without the consent of the attorney.
DeSalvo v. State 624 So. 2d 897 La. 1993
v. Edwins, -99 (La.1989); Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prod., Inc., (on rehearing).
Thanh Mai v. Blair 634 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Skidmore v. Bengal Flyers, Inc., (La.App.
Watson v. Cook 616 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier, McElligott & Swift v. Brodhead 613 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Palmer v. Goudchaux/Maison Blanche, Inc. 613 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Our Supreme Court has also approved of contingency fee contracts and routinely held them to be enforceable, see Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
Succession of Hirt 612 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Toups v. Leon L. Brainis & State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 608 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Under Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the attorney fee of a discharged attorney is to be apportioned according to the respective services and contributions of the attorney’s work performed and other relevant factors as set forth in Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct; which provides in pertinent part: (a) A lawyer’s fee shall be reaso
Melendreras v. Blanchard 598 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Keys, supra.
Scurto v. Siegrist 598 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Relying on Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., on rehearing, and DR 2-107 and DR 2-106 the trial court stated that a legal fee must be divided in proportion to the value of the services furnished by the attorneys.