DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Chaffin v. Chambers 577 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Succession of Wallace 574 So. 2d 348 La. 1991
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 115 (La.
  • Johnson v. Protective Cas. Ins. Co. 572 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    We remand to the trial court for the introduction of new evidence and an allocation consistent with the evidence, pursuant to the guidelines of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., *358 reh'g granted
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Sanders 568 So. 2d 1025 La. 1990
    See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing
  • Hawthorne v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 562 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court held this statute cannot be construed to authorize an attorney to acquire the actual ownership of a fixed percentage of his client's claim.
  • John Deere Co. v. Eames 556 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    See also Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Pham v. Anderson 556 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    See also Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Solar v. Griffin 554 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    The Supreme Court in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., stated: [O]nly one contingency fee should be paid by the client, the amount of the fee to be determined according to the highest ethical contingency percentage to which the client contractually agreed in any of the contingency fee contracts which he executed.
  • Volz v. Hertz Rent-A-Car 552 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    The court, citing its ruling in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., pointed out that the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Code of Professional Responsibility, set forth by virtue of the Supreme Court’s exercise of its prevailing judicial authority to regulate the practice of law, has the force and effect of substantive law.
  • TWENTY-FIRST JUD. DIST. COURT v. State 548 So. 2d 1208 La. 1989
    1979); , 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.
  • Colonial Bank v. Takee Outee Management Corp. 547 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    See also Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Skidmore v. Bengal Flyers, Inc. 546 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    THE “EARNED” FEE In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the court held that the full percentage called for by the contingency fee contract is due the attorney only when all or substantially all of the legal services called for by the contract have been performed.
  • Esteve v. Huntsinger 549 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    This trend began with Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., on rehearing, in which the court stated: “[W]e recognize as a primary consideration the Court’s duty to assert the authority conferred by the Constitution to regulate the practice of law, which stems from the grant of original exclusive jurisdiction of disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Edwins 540 So. 2d 294 La. 1989
    Ex Parte Steckler, 179 La.
  • Mire v. City of Lake Charles 540 So. 2d 950 La. 1989
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Keys v. Mercy Hosp. of New Orleans 537 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Smith v. Westside Transit Lines, Inc., (La.App.
  • Neely v. Hollywood Marine, Inc. 530 So. 2d 1116 La. 1988
    In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
  • Succession of Cloud 530 So. 2d 1146 La. 1988
    342 , (1942); Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Leenerts Farms
  • Konrad v. Jefferson Parish Council 520 So. 2d 393 La. 1988
    567 (La.App.Orl.Cir.1936); to require an attorney to represent an indigent, to establish standards governing the conduct of lawyers and to override statutes which tend to impede or frustrate this authority, Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., to order the governing authority to budget reasonable funds for expenses necessarily incurred for the district court's operation as a court, (La.App.
  • First National Bank of Commerce v. Pontchartrain Leasing Co. 519 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    See also Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Sewell v. Hanover Insurance Co. 517 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    The trial judge expressly rejected Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., as relevant or applicable in this instance.
  • Succession of Herrle 517 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the Supreme Court found that the authority of the courts to regulate the practice of law requires the enforcement of the Code of Professional Responsibility relative to the regulation of attorney's fees.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Krasnoff 515 So. 2d 780 La. 1987
    1982); Singer, Hutner, Levine, Seeman & Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Ex Parte Steckler, 179 La.
  • MURRAY, MURRAY, ELLIS v. Minge 516 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    In the case of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., an attorney was discharged by a client without cause prior to the completion of the services he promised to perform upon execution of a one third contingency fee contract.
  • THIBAUT v. Smith & Loveless, Inc. 517 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Leenerts Farms
  • Mini Togs Products, Inc. v. Wallace 513 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Clark v. Aetna Life Ins. 510 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Krampe v. Krampe 510 So. 2d 1289 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    The departure from that long established general rule reiterated in Simon v. Metoyer, supra, has been the case of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Defrancesch v. Hardin 510 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    APPLICABLE LAW For background on the law applicable to this case, the court turns to the landmark case of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Gamm, Greenberg & Kaplan v. Butts 508 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.App.
  • Scott v. Noel 506 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    Leenerts Farms, supra; Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
  • Walker v. Investment Properties, Ltd. 507 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    Moreover, the concept that stipulated attorney fees are an obligation in favor of the creditor, rather than the attorney, is the only theory which would circumvent application of D.R. 2-106, (La.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Krasnoff 502 So. 2d 1018 La. 1987
    See also, Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
  • Central Progressive Bank v. Bradley 502 So. 2d 1017 La. 1987
    See also Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • City of Baton Rouge v. Stauffer Chemical Co. 500 So. 2d 397 La. 1987
    Leenerts Farms, supra ; Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
  • Oubre v. Bank of St. Charles and Trust Co. 499 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    2nd Cir. 1983); Singer Hutner Levine Seeman & (La.
  • Moody v. Arabie 498 So. 2d 1081 La. 1986
    Leenerts Farms, and Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing, Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (on rehearing).
  • Sims v. Selvage 499 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Phillips v. Rowe 499 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the Code of Professional Responsibility has the force and effect of substantive law.
  • Central Progressive Bank v. Bradley 496 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., this constitutional *530 provision was interpreted by a majority of the Court as follows: In deciding this case we recognize as a primary consideration the Court's duty to assert the authority conferred by the Constitution to regulate the practice of law, which stems from the grant of original exclusiv
  • Sassone v. Gould 496 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Reed v. Verwoerdt 490 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    3rd Cir.1974); Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Krasnoff 488 So. 2d 1002 La. 1986
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Louisiana State Bar Association v. Edwins Ex Parte Steckler, 179 La.
  • Anderson, Hawsey & Rainach v. Clean Land Air Water Corp. 489 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    Counsel for all parties discuss at length the application vel non of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (on rehearing), which held that, given counsel serially employed under contingent fee contracts, "only one contingency fee should be paid by the client, the amount of the fee to be determined according to the highest ethical contingency percentage to which the client contractually agreed in any of the contin
  • Succession of Jenkins 481 So. 2d 607 La. 1986
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 114, 116, n. 6 (La.1979) (Calogero, J., on rehearing) (Dennis, J. dissenting from original opinion).
  • Richard v. Broussard 482 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Ross v. Sheriff of Lafourche Parish 479 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
  • State in Interest of Johnson 475 So. 2d 340 La. 1985
    Const. Art. II; (dissenting opinion on original hearing); Hargrave, The Judiciary Article of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, 37 La.L.Rev.
  • Dumond v. Houma Toyota, Inc.-AMC Jeep, Inc. 470 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Cf. Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
  • Kinsey v. Dixon 467 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    Saucier v. Hays Dairy Products, Inc.