Cited by

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

183 citing documents.

State v. Perez 464 So. 2d 737 La. 1985
Const. art. 5, § 5(B); Leenerts Farms, Singer, Hunter, Levine, Seeman & Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (on rehearing).
W & W Clarklift, Inc. v. Dixie Motor Freight, Inc. 464 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Bd. of Com'rs v. Com. on Ethics for Pub. Emp. 457 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
art. 2985 et seq.; Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (dissenting opinion by Justice Tate); C. Sklar, The Attorney-Client Relation in Louisiana, 18 La.L.Rev.
Knighten v. Knighten 447 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
This view is consistent with the "earned fee" concept announced in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
Farrar v. Kelly 440 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Succession of Boyenga 437 So. 2d 260 La. 1983
Leenerts Farm, Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Lowe v. Continental Ins. Co. 437 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Kem Search, Inc. v. Sheffield 434 So. 2d 1067 La. 1983
Leenerts Farms, Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Husk v. Blancand, 155 La.
National Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Guissinger 432 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Dambre v. Fair (La.App.
Hebert v. Neyrey 432 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVELOPMENT v. Tynes 433 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
Fowler v. Jordan 430 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
3d Cir.1981); Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Wheat Inc. v. Caruthers 428 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., on rehearing; (La.App.
Watson v. Cook 427 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Becnel v. Arnouville 425 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
The landmark decision regulating the award of attorneys fees in contingenty fee contracts between attorney and client is Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Reynolds, Nelson, Theriot & Stahl v. Chatelain 428 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Fontenot & Mitchell v. ROZAS, MANUEL, ETC. 425 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Appellant McGee assigns three specifications of error, the first being that the trial court erred in ruling that quantum meruit was inapplicable to this case, citing in support of his argument DR 2-107(A)(2) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the case of Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Succession of Boyenga 424 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Leenerts Farms, Inc., v. Rogers, et al., Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Leenerts Farms, Inc. v. Rogers 421 So. 2d 216 La. 1982
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Husk v. Blancand, 155 La.
McNeely v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources 413 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Contingency fees were discussed favorably and at great length by the Louisiana Supreme Court on rehearing in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
Clark v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. 410 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., on rehearing, our Louisiana Supreme Court held that a terminated attorney is obligated to name the succeeding attorney as an indispensable party in an action to recover attorney’s fees inasmuch as the issue of attorney fees was to be resolved by allocation between attorneys of the highest ethical contingent
Coon v. Landry 408 So. 2d 262 La. 1981
37:218; Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Imbornone v. Early 401 So. 2d 953 La. 1981
Pharis & Pharis v. Rayner 397 So. 2d 1295 La. 1981
See Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-106(A) and (B); Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
CHALMETTE GENERAL HOSP., INC. v. Cherry 398 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.App.
Succession of Marcel 395 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
We believe that the lower court has correctly followed our Supreme Court decision recently rendered in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (on rehearing).
American Gen. Inv. Corp. v. St. Elmo Lands 391 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
In Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., the Supreme Court pronounced limitations on the course an attorney may properly pursue to collect his fee after discharge by a client.
Horton v. Butler 387 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
3rd Cir. 1974); Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Simon v. Metoyer 383 So. 2d 1321 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
The effect to be given to the Code of Professional Responsibility when its provisions conflict with legislative enactments was recently discussed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in its opinion on rehearing in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.
Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Perez 379 So. 2d 1373 La. 1980
The Code of Professional Responsibility, a set of rules adopted by this Court, having the force and effect of substantive law, see Singer, Hutner, Levine, Seeman & Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., provides that "[t]he responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
SINGER HUNTER LEVINE, ETC. v. La. State Bar Ass'n 378 So. 2d 423 La. 1979
[4] Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (La.
Scott v. Kemper Ins. Co. 377 So. 2d 66 La. 1979
Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg. 376 So. 2d 495 La. 1979
However, held it to be otherwise stating "the `interest in the subject matter of the suit, proposed suit or claim' safeguarded by the statute is, we believe, no more than a privilege granted to aid the attorney's collection of a fully earned fee out of the fund which the satisfaction of the client's claim yields."